Four weeks after the government tabled eight ordinances in the House of Representatives and the National Assembly, it has yet to initiate the process required for their approval, raising uncertainty about their future.

Although ordinances must be endorsed by Parliament and replaced by bills to become permanent laws, the government is now discussing the possibility of introducing separate bills instead.

The ordinances, issued by President Ramchandra Paudel on the recommendation of the Cabinet by May 5, were tabled in Parliament on May 11. The next step would normally be for the government to present proposals seeking parliamentary approval of the ordinances. However, no such process has begun.

“After the ordinances were tabled, no further procedure has moved ahead. They are not included in the House of Representatives agenda for June 8 either,” said Eakram Giri, spokesperson for the Federal Parliament Secretariat. “Whether they proceed after that will depend entirely on the government.”

The parliamentary calendar approved by the House of Representatives through June 29 also does not include any schedule for endorsing the ordinances.

The Constitution requires ordinances to be approved by both houses of Parliament and authenticated by the President within 60 days of being tabled in Parliament. If no decision is taken within that period, they automatically lapse. The ordinance will automatically lapse on July 10 if no action is taken.

The government and Parliament face mounting pressure to pass crucial budget-related bills amid continued disruption by opposition parties in the House

Article 114(2)(a) of the Constitution states that an ordinance becomes void if it is not approved by both houses. While the ruling Rastriya Swatantra Party enjoys a near two-thirds majority in the House of Representatives, it has no presence in the National Assembly, where opposition parties have already registered notices seeking to reject the ordinances.

This appears to be one of the key reasons the government has shown little interest in moving them forward. Unlike ordinances, ordinary bills can still be advanced by the House of Representatives even if the National Assembly suggests amendments.

A minister said the government has refrained from initiating the approval process because Parliament has not been able to hold substantive discussions on budget-related bills, opposition parties have filed rejection notices in the National Assembly, and the main objectives behind the ordinances have already been achieved.

According to the minister, discussions are underway on introducing separate bills directly in Parliament instead of registering replacement bills linked to the ordinances.

One of the most significant ordinances amended provisions relating to the Constitutional Council, enabling the government to move forward with the appointment of the chief justice. Soon after the ordinance was issued, the Constitutional Council recommended Manoj Kumar Sharma for the post. He has since completed parliamentary hearings and been appointed chief justice.

Similarly, the ordinance concerning public office holders has already been implemented, leading to the removal of around 1,500 office bearers. Another ordinance abolished employees’ trade unions, a move that is currently being challenged in the Supreme Court.

“Even if the ordinances lapse now, the government is unlikely to face any major consequences,” said a secretary at one ministry.

In the National Assembly, where all parties sit in opposition, the CPN-UML has registered notices seeking rejection of all eight ordinances, while the Nepali Congress and the Nepali Communist Party have sought the rejection of two ordinances each. Government officials acknowledge that there is a strong possibility the ordinances could be voted down if they are taken up for discussion.

Another factor behind the delay is the government’s concern that moving the ordinances forward could provide the opposition with another reason to intensify house protests, at a time when budget discussions have already faced repeated disruptions.

Parashwor Dhungana, secretary at the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, confirmed that discussions are ongoing about introducing separate bills.

“Since the government has a strong majority in parliamentary committees and in the House of Representatives, there has been discussion that new bills could be passed more easily,” he said. “The concerned ministries are preparing draft bills accordingly.”

At the first meeting of the budget session, Minister for Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Sobita Gautam tabled ordinances relating to public procurement (second amendment), the removal of public office holders, the Constitutional Council (functions, duties, powers and procedures) (first amendment) and amendments to various laws.

Finance Minister Swarnim Wagle tabled the Money Laundering Prevention (Third Amendment) Ordinance. Minister for Land Management, Cooperatives, Federal Affairs and General Administration Pratibha Rawal presented the Cooperative Ordinance, Health Minister Neesha Mehta tabled the ordinance amending laws related to health science academies, and Education and Sports Minister Sasmit Pokharel presented the ordinance amending laws governing universities.

According to a minister, the concerned ministries are preparing bills largely based on the same provisions contained in the ordinances. Once the drafts are completed, they will be sent to the law ministry for review before being presented to the Cabinet. After Cabinet approval, the bills will be registered in the House of Representatives.

Rajendra Phuyal, a former secretary of the National Assembly, said the government appears to lack a clear position on the ordinances.

“Ordinances are like sunset laws. They are expected to be converted into permanent legislation through replacement bills within 60 days,” he said. “Delaying that process is not a good legislative practice.”