The amending of the Constitution of Nepal has been a hot topic for discussion for a number of years. The charter revision was the main agenda that brought the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML together in July 2025 to form the government under KP Sharma Oli—or so they claimed. However, the two parties didn’t make any concrete effort to amend the constitution before the September Gen Z protest ousted Oli. The Rastriya Swatantra Party, which secured close to two-thirds majority in the March 5 elections, seems to have taken the matter more seriously.

A team chaired by Ashim Shah, political advisor to Balendra Shah, is already working on the discussion paper that lists possible provisions for revision. The Asim Shah-led panel has asked nine different political parties to submit their suggestions on the amendment. The constitution is an evolving document. Article 274 provides that all provisions, except those relating to the sovereignty, territorial integrity, independence of Nepal, and the sovereignty vested in the people, can be amended, provided the due constitutional process is followed. In fact, through amendments reflecting changing times, the constitution can remain a long-lasting framework.

For instance, the Indian Constitution, enacted in 1950, has been amended 106 times so far. Promulgated in 2015 amid reservations from the Madheshi community, Nepal’s main law of the land has also already undergone two revisions. Currently, all political parties agree on the need for revision. But they differ on what should actually be revised. In its proposals, the Rastriya Prajatantra Party has demanded the reinstatement of the monarchy, restoration of Nepal as a Hindu nation, and the scrapping of provinces. The RSP, on the other hand, has floated the idea of a directly elected executive, a fully proportional parliament, non-partisan local governments, and reformed provinces.

The other parties are expected to take positions broadly consistent with their earlier public stances. Unlike the RSP, the Congress and the UML favour reducing the number of proportional representation seats to increase the share of first-past-the-post constituencies. It is natural for parties with differing political ideologies and backgrounds to have divergent positions. At the same time, this also suggests that finding a common ground will not be easy. It will call for intense deliberations, first within the parties and then at the public level.

Forming a panel with representation from various political parties to draft the discussion paper is a welcome move. It ensures that different political forces have a say in the amendment process from the outset. This spirit of consultation should continue. Not every agenda of every party can be accommodated through the amendment process. However, the exercise should aim to build maximum consensus in order to make the amendment process inclusive.

The 2015 Constitution is the outcome of a decade-long Maoist insurgency, the 2006 people’s movement, and the Madhesh uprising. As the amendment process moves forward, it is also important to recognise that the constitution was drafted by the people’s representatives over seven years of deliberations. Core achievements such as federalism, republicanism, and inclusion should therefore be non-negotiable, while there can always be room to strengthen and refine these gains. This could be done through revisions to the electoral and governance systems across all tiers of government, as well as by establishing more robust appointment mechanisms for the judiciary and constitutional commissions.