Controversy Erupts Over Proposed House Regulations in Nepal
A significant constitutional debate has ignited in Nepal following the submission of a new draft of the House of Representatives Regulations. The draft, prepared by a committee led by the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), contains a controversial provision that seeks to grant parliamentary rules the force of “special law,” potentially placing them above existing federal statutes.
The controversy centers on Rule 259 of the draft regulations, which states that notwithstanding anything in prevailing laws, these rules shall function as federal law regarding the House, its committees, and its members. Critics and legal analysts argue that this is a strategic move designed to safeguard the political position of RSP Chair Rabi Lamichhane. Lamichhane, who is currently out on bail, faces multiple charges related to cooperative fraud, organized crime, and money laundering. In the previous parliament, he was suspended under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, a move the RSP has long contested.
Under the leadership of the RSP, which secured a near two-thirds majority in the March 5 elections, the drafting committee has proposed that the tenure and privileges of lawmakers cannot be curtailed by other laws, regardless of whether a member is present in the House. This would effectively shield lawmakers from suspension even if they face serious criminal charges under federal statutes.
While the Federal Parliament Secretariat spokesperson, Ekram Giri, defends the move as falling under the constitutional right of the House to frame its own rules, the main opposition, Nepali Congress, has raised serious alarms. Opposition lawmaker Niskal Rai stated that while the draft was passed “unanimously” within the committee, it was only due to the RSP’s overwhelming majority. He maintains that his party has deep reservations about placing internal regulations on the same footing as federal law.
Constitutional experts have also weighed in, cautioning against this perceived overreach. Senior advocate Radheshyam Adhikari pointed out that a federal statute requires the approval of both Houses and authentication by the President, whereas House regulations are adopted by a single chamber. “Regulations cannot be framed in a way that overturns federal law,” Adhikari noted, emphasizing the hierarchy of Nepal’s legal system.
The draft is set to be tabled during the first meeting of the upcoming budget session. As the amendment process begins, the Parliament is expected to face a heated battle over whether the House should remain a body governed by the laws of the land or a sanctuary with its own superior legal status. Meanwhile, a Supreme Court petition seeking Lamichhane’s suspension was denied registration earlier this week, leaving the political and legal fate of the RSP leader—and the integrity of the House rules—at the center of national attention.
