On April 22, President Ramchandra Paudel, on the government’s recommendation, summoned a joint session of both Houses of the federal Parliament for April 30. A day later, the decision was indefinitely suspended. Although the government maintained that the session was deferred by only a few days, citing incomplete preparations at the Parliament Secretariat, the real intent became clearer on Monday. The session was called off before it could even begin in order to issue ordinances.

The government led by Balendra Shah has recommended that the President issue ordinances amending the Acts Related to the Constitutional Council and addressing the refund of savings deposited by members of troubled cooperatives. The Office of the President is currently reviewing the proposed ordinances. Issuing ordinances is a constitutional prerogative of the government, enshrined in Article 114 of the Constitution. However, it is subject to two mandatory conditions: first, that Parliament must not be in session; and second, that there must be a need for urgent action.

The Shah administration has not explained the urgency of calling off the House session before its commencement, and then bringing ordinances. Talking to Kantipur, Law Minister Sobita Gautam said the ordinance was necessary to fill a legal vacuum in the Constitutional Council Act, enabling the appointment of a chief justice without delay. Earlier, successive governments had amended the Act through ordinances, but those ordinances were never endorsed by Parliament. As a result, Gautam argued, a legal vacuum had been created. But her claim does not appear to be well-founded, as the Supreme Court has already clarified that when an ordinance ceases to be effective, the original provisions of the law are automatically restored. This means all the original provisions of the Act remain fully in force.

Whatever the government’s defence, the ordinances appear aimed at easing decision-making for Shah within the Constitutional Council, which he chairs. Of the six council members, three—the Chairperson of the National Assembly, the Deputy Speaker, and a leader from the opposition—are from opposition backgrounds. Only Shah and the Speaker come from the Rastriya Swatantra Party. The chief justice serves in a neutral capacity. According to the President’s Office, the proposed ordinances include a provision allowing decisions to be taken by just three members of the council, which further clarifies the intent behind their issuance.

The ordinances have been introduced not only without adequately explaining the urgency but also near the start of the budget session, which must commence by May 7–8 for the presentation and deliberation on the government’s policies and programmes. The decision to summon the session must be taken in a day or two. The incumbent RSP-led government commands a near two-thirds majority in the lower House, making it relatively easy to pass legislation at its convenience. Yet it opted for a path of governing by ordinances while keeping Parliament suspended. Five years ago, the court had cautioned the Oli government, noting that repeated use of ordinances to circumvent Parliament was contrary to the principle of separation of powers. Describing such measures as “camouflaged legislation,” the court had held that ordinances issued with the intent of bypassing Parliament cannot get constitutional legitimacy.

Even before coming to power, the RSP leadership had repeatedly pledged to correct the governance failures of previous governments and to uphold the rule of law. However, Monday’s developments suggest otherwise, indicating a continuation of the arbitrary approach to lawmaking that it once criticised. There is still time for course correction. The government should consider withdrawing the ordinances and seeking parliamentary endorsement instead. For that, the new session must be summoned without delay.