Rumors are just rumors; there are enough constitutional provisions on changing govt: Adv. Dipendra Jha

  • Dipendra Jha

There are Media reports with an argument that the government cannot be changed even though CPN Maoist Center, the largest partner of the KP Sharma Oli-led coalition government pulled out its support. This is just a just rumor. What The Fact is: There are enough constitutional provisions on changing government.

The argument that the government cannot be changed now is illogical as well as unconstitutional. The argument whoever has made serves against the basic norms of the parliamentarian system. It is the basic norms of the parliamentarian system that can change the government. It will be beyond imagination that sovereign parliament cannot change the head of government. This statement also goes against theory of check and balance and separation of power among state organs (executive, legislative and judiciary). Check and balance and  separation of power are two basic principles of democracy.

Likewise, when argued that the Constitution of Nepal 2015 does not allow change of the government, it should be understood as the failure of the constitution. 

Under the part 33, transitional provisions, of the Constitution has provisions relating to the formation of Council of Ministers (Article 298). Its sub-articles (2, 3 & 8) clearly state provisions related to the election of Prime Minister.



Moreover, the constitution article (298) has further been explained under the Legislative-Parliament Regulations 2016. The part 9 of the Regulations, which includes Rule 49, is specially dedicated to the procedures relating to the election of the Prime Minister. The procedure consists of 14 different sub-rules. The sub-rule (14) states:

If the position of the Prime Minister is vacant because of any reason, the Prime Minister shall be elected in accordance with this regulation until the federal parliament is not formed.

Having said this, there is also a rumor that some members of the legislative-parliament could vote against the party whip.  Let us not forget that the Anti-Defection Act 1997 section 3 (D) does not allow any individual members of parliament to vote against the party whip. Below is the act, which prevents lawmakers to vote against the party.

3. It may be deemed to have been occurred party defection: (1) If a member commits any of the following acts, the concerned party may conclude that such member has defected from the party;                     d)  Casts his/her vote or remains neutral or absents from voting in the Constituent Assembly against the whip issued by the leader or whip of his/her own party.