The constitutional provision that allows ordinances to be introduced when parliament is not in session has also raised suspicions - is the government trying to circumvent parliament?
We use Google Cloud Translation Services. Google requires we provide the following disclaimer relating to use of this service:
This service may contain translations powered by Google. Google disclaims all warranties related to the translations, expressed or implied, including any warranties of accuracy, reliability, and any implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and noninfringement.
A political and constitutional debate has now begun after the government decided to postpone the parliament session before it even began. Although the Constitution of Nepal 2072 BS provides for the President to convene and end the session on the recommendation of the Council of Ministers, it is considered a rare practice to postpone the session without holding it.
Especially as the budget session is approaching, such a decision has raised questions about the government's preparations, priorities, and political objectives. Meanwhile, the constitutional provision that allows ordinances to be introduced when the parliament is not in session has also raised suspicions - is the government trying to circumvent the parliament? This question is at the center of debate from social media to political circles.
Against this background, what is a parliament session? What is its political and legal meaning? We are asking questions and answering questions on various topics.
What is a parliament session and why is it necessary?
A parliament session is a formal process in which elected representatives meet in one place to decide on the rules, policies, and budget for running the country. In simple terms, it is the 'decision-making place' of the country. Where the work of the government is also reviewed. During the parliamentary session, the decisions made by the government are questioned. The voices of the citizens are raised in the parliament. During the session, new laws are made and old laws are also amended.
What is the parliamentary tradition and type of session in Nepal?
Nepal generally has a tradition of holding two major sessions a year - the summer (budget) session and the winter (bill) session. The summer session mainly presents and passes the budget. Whereas, the winter session mainly focuses on making and amending various laws.
This tradition has been going on in Nepali parliamentary history for a long time. Even amidst some political instability, a certain rhythm of convening, conducting and ending the session has been established. Therefore, adjourning the session without conducting it after convening it is considered an unusual practice.
Why has it become unusual and controversial to call a session and adjourn it now?
This time, the government has adjourned the session again within a few days of convening it, which is considered a very rare event in Nepali parliamentary history. Generally, after a session is called, the meeting is conducted according to its agenda. But here, the decision to 'call and immediately stop' has raised questions about the government's preparation and intentions.
Another reason for the controversy is its political timing. Such a decision comes at a time when the budget session is about to begin. And the discussion about the possibility of bringing an ordinance related to the civil service and the Constitutional Council at this time has raised suspicions that the government is trying to circumvent the parliament. It is also being criticized on social media as a 'raw decision' to 'a step taken without prior preparation'.
What are the provisions regarding the parliament session according to the Constitution of Nepal?
According to Article 93 of the Constitution, the President has the right to call and end the parliament session, but it is based on the recommendation of the Council of Ministers. That is, the actual decision is made by the government and the President formalizes it. The session has also been postponed in accordance with this provision.
Similarly, Article 114 paves the way for bringing an ordinance when the parliament is not in session. If some legal provision is urgently needed, the government can make a decision through an ordinance when the parliament is not in session. But this provision is for emergencies or urgent situations, not for regular practice. Therefore, it seems natural to ask questions when considering the adjournment of sessions and the possible use of ordinances together.
How powerful is the government when parliament is not in session?
The government is comparatively more powerful when parliament is not in session. Because at that time it does not have to face direct parliamentary oversight. Ministers do not have to answer to parliament, the opposition cannot ask questions, and the activity of parliamentary committees may also decrease.
In such a situation, the government can introduce laws through ordinances, which come into force immediately. But this can upset the democratic balance, because the role of parliament is weakened. This also has a direct impact on citizens - necessary laws can get stuck, and government decisions can be less transparent.
What can the opposition or MPs do in such a situation?
The constitution has given some powerful options not only to the government, but also to MPs. If the government is reluctant to convene a session or if parliament is not in session for a long time, at least one-fourth of the total number of MPs can call a special session by submitting a written request.
This provision is important. Because it prevents the parliament from being completely under the control of the government. That is, the opposition or disgruntled MPs can reactivate the parliament if they wish. In practice, political consensus is required to gather this number. So, although this option is legally possible, it can be politically challenging.
How are such incidents viewed in India and the UK?
The practice of bringing an ordinance when the parliament is not in session has been used repeatedly in India. Which has also been criticized there. In particular, there have been allegations that the government used the ordinance to circumvent the parliament. Therefore, even though this constitutional right is there, there is an ongoing debate about its misuse.
In the UK, a major controversy over 'prorogation', i.e. the suspension of parliament, was seen in 2019. When the government was accused of trying to advance its political agenda by stopping the parliament. Ultimately, the court ruled it illegal. What these examples show is that the decision to hold or not to hold a session of parliament is not only a political but also a legal matter. Which has a direct relationship with the democratic system.
