Interim Prime Minister Sushila Karki has recommended an ordinance to the President that would suspend mandatory parliamentary hearings for constitutional appointments during the dissolution of the House of Representatives. The proposal, submitted to President Ramchandra Poudel, allows appointments to proceed without hearings until a new House is formed.
The move has placed President Poudel in a difficult position. He had previously returned a similar Constitutional Council Bill passed by both Houses, but the same provisions have now resurfaced in the form of an ordinance requiring his decision.
According to the ordinance, individuals recommended for constitutional posts can be appointed before parliamentary hearings when the House is dissolved. Once a new House convenes, the parliamentary hearing committee must decide within 45 days. If the committee rejects the name within that period, the appointee will automatically lose the position.
Nepal’s constitution mandates parliamentary hearings for appointments including the Chief Justice, Supreme Court justices, heads of constitutional commissions, ambassadors, and members of the Judicial Council. Because of this requirement, the proposal to bypass hearings during dissolution has triggered political and constitutional debate.
Political Reactions and the President’s Pending Decision
The government’s earlier bill had stated that the Constitutional Council would make decisions unanimously, and if unanimity was not achieved, the Prime Minister and at least 50 percent of active members could decide by majority. The National Assembly later added detailed examples clarifying quorum and voting procedures, which the House of Representatives accepted before sending the bill for certification.
At the time, strong objections emerged from within the Nepali Congress. Senior leader Shekhar Koirala argued that the bill undermined the party’s core principles, creating internal pressure that contributed to the President returning the bill.
Now, with Prime Minister Karki forwarding similar provisions through an ordinance, President Poudel must again decide whether to approve or reject it. Approving the ordinance may draw criticism from Congress leadership, while rejecting it could leave key constitutional positions vacant for an extended period.
As debate intensifies, critics warn that the ordinance could allow the government to make politically favorable appointments during the election period while hearings remain suspended. With the ordinance awaiting action, constitutional experts say the President’s decision will have significant political and institutional consequences.
