5 May 2026 | Kathmandu, Nepal
KATHMANDU – The President returned it. The Cabinet sent it back. And now, the battle over Nepal's Constitutional Council moves to Parliament.
President Ram Chandra Poudel has officially promulgated the Constitutional Council (Functions, Duties, Powers and Procedures) First Amendment Ordinance 2083, ending days of constitutional uncertainty – but opening a new political firestorm.
The ordinance was issued after the Cabinet resubmitted the proposal for a second time without any amendments, despite the President having earlier returned it for reconsideration over concerns regarding its decision-making structure.
⚡ KEY PROVISION: The ordinance allows the Constitutional Council to hold a valid meeting if four out of six members are present – meaning just three members could make landmark constitutional appointments.
The Numbers Game: How Three Members Could Decide Nepal's Future
The central controversy surrounding the ordinance lies in its quorum and voting provisions. Under the amended arrangement, only four members need to be present to constitute a valid meeting, and decisions can be made by a simple majority of those present.
In practical terms, this means that only three members of the six-member Constitutional Council could make significant constitutional appointments – a proposal critics call a dangerous dilution of collective constitutional responsibility.
Who are these six members? The Prime Minister, Chief Justice, Speaker of the House, National Assembly Chairperson, Deputy Speaker, and Opposition Leader. Under the new rules, the government could potentially push through appointments with the support of just three of them.
Critics argue that this weakens the spirit of collective constitutional responsibility and reduces the importance of majority representation of the full council.
The President's Dilemma: Return, Reconsider, Relent
President Poudel had initially returned the ordinance, expressing concerns that major constitutional decisions should be based on the majority of the total membership, rather than only those attending the meeting. His position reflected concern over preserving the constitutional principle of broad consensus in important appointments and governance decisions.
However, Nepal's constitutional framework remains unclear on how the President should proceed if an ordinance is returned but resubmitted unchanged by the executive. Legal experts and constitutional scholars argued that the President had a constitutional obligation to promulgate the ordinance after the government repeated its recommendation.
Senior advocate and presidential adviser Baburam Kunwar stated that the President acted according to constitutional spirit and legal obligation after the government formally resubmitted the proposal.
— Baburam Kunwar, presidential adviser and senior advocate
Parliament Next: The Real Battle Begins
The ordinance will now be presented in Nepal's Federal Parliament for legislative review. Parliament will have the final authority to debate, amend, approve, or reject the ordinance. Political analysts believe the parliamentary session could become a major battleground over constitutional procedure, executive authority, and democratic accountability.
Following the ordinance's promulgation, the Cabinet also recommended summoning both houses of Nepal's Federal Parliament. Government spokesperson Sasmit Pokharel confirmed that the government has recommended that Parliament convene on Baisakh 28 (May 11, 2026) at 2 PM.
The upcoming parliamentary session is expected to discuss the ordinance and other urgent legislative matters.
Why the Constitutional Council Matters
The Constitutional Council plays a critical role in Nepal's democratic system. It recommends appointments to key constitutional bodies, including:
- The Election Commission
- The Public Service Commission
- The National Human Rights Commission
- The Auditor General
- The Attorney General
- Other constitutional oversight institutions
Changes in its decision-making process can have long-term political and institutional consequences. Who controls the Council effectively controls the gateways to Nepal's constitutional architecture.
Broader Political Significance: A Test of Constitutional Balance
As Nepal's political landscape remains highly dynamic, this ordinance could shape future debates over constitutional balance, executive power, and institutional independence. The government argues the changes are necessary for efficient functioning; the opposition sees them as a power grab.
Either way, the ordinance is now law – at least until Parliament decides otherwise.
The parliamentary session beginning May 11 will determine the final fate of the ordinance. Members of Parliament can amend it, reject it entirely, or approve it as is. Given the political sensitivity of the issue, heated debates are all but guaranteed.
Stay updated with the latest Nepal news on our Nepal Pulse Page.
