The House of Representatives on Thursday endorsed the bill to amend the Citizenship Act 2006, which was returned by President Bidya Devi Bhandari for a review, without any changes.

The bill that was endorsed with a majority vote will be sent to the President’s Office again for authentication after it gets through the National Assembly.

After sitting on the bill for 14 days, Bhandari on Sunday returned it to the lower house with a 15-point message and comments on seven provisions of the bill, urging Parliament to review it.

However, the House didn’t review it as the ruling parties decided to resend it for authentication without any changes.

“The bill to amend the Citizenship Act returned by the President for review with comments has been endorsed by majority votes,” announced Speaker Agni Sapkota. “Of the total 195 lawmakers present, 135 voted in favour while 60 voted against.”

While the ruling party lawmakers voted for the bill, the main opposition CPN-UML stood against it arguing that a national consensus must be forged before its endorsement.

It was put to a vote after some 80 cross-party lawmakers participated in the deliberations giving their views for and against an immediate endorsement of the bill. While most ruling party lawmakers demanded it needs to be endorsed without revision, the opposition lawmakers insisted on a review.

“The President could have returned the bill if it contradicted the constitution. However, the note from her nowhere mentions it contradicts the statute,” said Barsha Man Pun, a CPN (Maoist Centre) lawmaker, while taking part in the deliberations.

“The constitutional provision on revision can be used when there is contradiction [in the bill] with the constitution.” Article 113(3) of the constitution allows the President to return any bill for the review if s/he deems it necessary.

Expressing his views, Nepali Congress lawmaker Gagan Thapa said delaying the endorsement of the bill meant that thousands of children born to the parents who have acquired citizenship by birth would be deprived of citizenship, and so would those waiting to acquire citizenship through their mothers.

“The President is for having a common understanding on naturalised citizenship by marriage but we have failed to do so,” Thapa said. “The present bill doesn’t talk about naturalised citizenship by marriage. Whether or not the present bill gets endorsed, a foreign woman married to a Nepali man would be getting naturalised citizenship.”

Thapa said that some 440,000 foreign women married to Nepali men have acquired naturalised citizenship so far.

CPN-UML lawmakers, however, said the five-party alliance has turned the Parliament into a rubber stamp. “The discussion in Parliament was just for formality. It was decided that it would be endorsed as dictated by the ruling alliance,” said Bishal Bhattarai, chief whip of the UML, in Parliament.

“We had expected that the lawmakers would be allowed to propose amendments and due procedure would be followed for endorsement. Where is parliamentary supremacy when it functions as dictated by a few leaders of the five parties?”

The ruling alliance on Tuesday had decided to endorse the bill without revision against the request of the President. Presenting the bill for endorsement, Minister for Home Affairs Bal Krishna Khand said the bill is targeted at opening the door to children of the parents who got citizenship by birth to acquire citizenship by descent and those whose fathers are unidentified.

“We can always revise the Act if it is necessary,” he said. “Let’s have a common understanding on the issue of marital naturalised citizenship and amend the Act again,” the minister said.

Article 11 (3) of the constitution says a child of a citizen who has acquired the citizenship of Nepal by birth before the commencement of the constitution, shall acquire the citizenship of Nepal by descent. The existing Act allows everyone born within Nepal’s territory before April 12, 1990 to acquire citizenship by birth.

However, their children haven’t got citizenship by descent in the absence of a law as the constitution said the provision to grant them citizenship would be guided by a federal law. Some 190,000 persons have acquired citizenship by birth so far.

Similarly, the bill also paves the way for a child born in Nepal to a Nepali woman and whose father is unidentified to get citizenship by descent. However, the applicant’s mother must make a self-declaration that the father “cannot be identified.” She will be liable for action if it is found that the claim that the father “cannot be identified” turns out to be wrong.

For the first time, the bill also paves the way for Non-resident Nepalis to acquire citizenship. However, they will not be eligible to enjoy political and administrative rights. The provision will be applicable only to those who reside outside the South Asian region.

As per the bill, children can choose either the surname and address of their mother or the father while acquiring citizenship. Similarly, one can get citizenship through gender identity in line with the constitution. Article 12 of the constitution says a person who obtains the citizenship of Nepal by descent in accordance with the constitution may obtain a certificate of citizenship of Nepal with gender identity in the name of his or her mother or father.

The House of Representatives will now send the bill for endorsement from the National Assembly. It will then be sent to the President’s Office for presidential seal. President Bhandari has no option but to authenticate it within 15 days. Article 113 (4) of the constitution says if the President sends back a Bill along with her remarks and if both the Houses reconsider the bill as it was presented or with amendments, and pass it and present it again to the President, the bill shall be certified by the President within 15 days of its submission.

Constitutional experts say both the President and Parliament have taken decisions as prescribed by the constitution. “It would have been better had the House of Representatives discussed it in its committee in detail as the President had returned the bill with some comments,” senior advocate Chandra Kant Gyawali, who specialises on constitutional law, told the Post. “However, it was the House’s prerogative to endorse the bill the way it liked.”