Despite obstruction from opposition parties, the House of Representatives passed the regulations on 17 Jestha. The main subject of the writ concerns the provisions related to the preamble of the regulations and the provisions of Rule 259 and Rule 140.
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.
Despite obstruction from opposition parties, the House of Representatives passed the new rules by majority, against which the Congress has filed a writ petition at the Supreme Court.
The main subject of the writ concerns the preamble of the rules and the provisions related to Rule 259 and Rule 140. The writ states that the phrase “notwithstanding anything contained in prevailing law” in Rule 259 seeks to place the House of Representatives Rules above federal law, and therefore should be annulled.
The provision regarding suspension in the House of Representatives Rules is at the center of the main dispute. According to the rules, even if a serious criminal charge is filed against a member of parliament or they are arrested, their position will not be suspended unless they are sent to jail for remand. Leaders of the opposition Congress and UML have been saying that such a provision was included in the rules, contrary to federal law, to protect leaders accused of criminal offenses.
The procedure related to constitutional amendment has also been claimed to be controversial. The writ states that Rule 140 and related provisions seek to weaken or disregard the role of the National Assembly in sensitive matters such as constitutional amendments.
Article 274 of Nepal’s Constitution clearly provides that separate two-thirds representation from both houses is required for constitutional amendments. However, the rules grant the Speaker the authority to calculate two-thirds by combining the total number of members of the House of Representatives and the National Assembly. The writ claims that this is contrary to the spirit and intent of the Constitution and seeks to have it annulled. It is expressed that such an interpretation of the rules could undermine the role of the National Assembly and the legislative process, including presidential authentication, thereby interfering with the constitutional process.
Article 104(1) of the Constitution stipulates that rules can only be made within three areas of jurisdiction. It states, “Each member of the Federal Parliament may make rules to conduct its business, maintain order in meetings, and to regulate the formation, work, proceedings, and procedures of any house or committee.”
However, it is claimed that the rules passed by majority have made provisions beyond the jurisdiction of the Constitution and a demand for annulment has been made. Through its internal rules, the House of Representatives has created an unconstitutional situation where it could render ineffective even the implementation of criminal laws duly enacted by the Federal Parliament.
“The Constitution grants the House of Representatives the authority under Article 104 only to determine its own conduct and procedures, not to grant immunity from criminal liability or to render prevailing law ineffective,” the writ states. “Therefore, the provision in Rule 259 attempts to place members of the House of Representatives above prevailing law, particularly criminal law, going beyond the established constitutional supremacy, rule of law, the principle of equality before the law, and the limited special privileges granted to members by the Constitution, and is thus unconstitutional and void.”
Rule 259 of the House of Representatives Rules, 2083, provides that the internal procedural rules made by the House of Representatives under Article 104 shall be applied as ‘federal law’ and ‘special law’. The writ states that such a provision renders irrelevant and ineffective the constitutional process requiring the participation of the National Assembly and presidential authentication as per Articles 111 and 113.
Despite obstruction from opposition parties, the rules were passed by the House of Representatives on 17 Jestha. Since then, opposition parties have been objecting in Parliament to the provisions in the rules that conflict with the Constitution and law, as well as to the process by which they were passed.
