A day after President Ramchandra Paudel promulgated an ordinance amending the Constitutional Council (Functions, Duties, Powers and Procedures) Act, the Constitutional Council convened on May 7, recommending Manoj Kumar Sharma for appointment as chief justice.

Since then, however, the council has made no further recommendations, even though 19 positions, including chairs and members of various constitutional commissions, have remained vacant for prolonged periods.

Article 284(3) of Nepal’s Constitution requires the Constitutional Council to recommend appointments to constitutional bodies at least one month before a vacancy arises. Yet months after several key posts fell vacant, the council has shown little urgency in filling them.

The post of Chief Election Commissioner has remained vacant for 14 months, while one commissioner position has been unfilled for even longer. The chair posts at the National Natural Resources and Fiscal Commission, the Tharu Commission, the Madhesi Commission and the Muslim Commission have also been vacant for 15 months.

The National Natural Resources and Fiscal Commission has three vacant member positions. The National Dalit Commission has two vacancies, while the Muslim Commission, Tharu Commission, Madhesi Commission and National Inclusion Commission each have one vacant member position. One member position is also vacant at the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority, the National Human Rights Commission and the National Women Commission. Under the Constitution, each constitutional commission consists of a chair and five members.

The government’s failure to prioritise appointments to these bodies has prompted questions for Prime Minister Balendra Shah, who chairs the Constitutional Council. If the ordinance’s primary purpose was to enable appointments to constitutional bodies, critics ask, why did the process stop after the recommendation for chief justice?

Bhisma Raj Angdembe, leader of the main opposition and a member of the Constitutional Council, said he had received no information about another council meeting.

“Even when the ordinance was introduced, it seemed it might have been intended only to recommend a chief justice,” Angdembe said. “After that meeting, I have not even heard any discussion about convening another one. I have also had no communication with the prime minister on the matter.”

Former Supreme Court justice Balram KC said the government’s decision to recommend only the chief justice after issuing the ordinance had inevitably raised questions about the prime minister’s intentions.

“The ordinance itself should never have been brought,” KC said. “But once it was issued, appointments should also have been made to the constitutional commissions. Limiting the process to the chief justice creates the impression that the government’s focus was only on securing power. The ordinance should have been fully utilised to fill long-vacant posts and strengthen these commissions. Failing to do so suggests a lack of experience on the part of the prime minister.”

Deepa Dahal, press and research adviser to Prime Minister Shah, said the government had been preoccupied with governance reforms and had therefore been unable to focus on appointments despite recognising their importance.

“No date has been fixed for another Constitutional Council meeting,” she said. “The government is currently focused on several governance-related priorities. It remains committed to appointing officials to the constitutional commissions and plans to proceed accordingly.”

The Election Commission conducted the House of Representatives elections on March 5 under acting leadership. Acting Chief Election Commissioner Ram Prasad Bhandari said the commission’s work had not been affected despite two vacant positions.

“We demonstrated our capacity by successfully conducting the election,” Bhandari said. “In fact, the Election Commission does not require more than three commissioners. We have also submitted this recommendation to the government’s constitutional amendment task force.”

Among the constitutional bodies, the National Natural Resources and Fiscal Commission arguably carries the broadest mandate. It plays a central role in Nepal’s federal system by ensuring the equitable distribution of revenue and financial resources among the federal, provincial and local governments.

The commission determines the basis and formula for distributing revenue from the federal consolidated fund, recommends fiscal equalisation and conditional grants, evaluates the expenditure responsibilities and revenue capacity of provincial and local governments, recommends borrowing limits for subnational governments, determines the basis for sharing revenue generated from natural resources and advises on resolving disputes related to resource sharing.

Despite these responsibilities, the commission has effectively been operating with only one member since April 22.

Bipin Raj Niraula, the acting chairperson, said legal provisions had allowed the commission to continue making decisions despite the vacancies, although its overall effectiveness had suffered.

“Our principal work, including recommendations on fiscal equalisation and conditional grants, had already been completed in March, so the vacancies did not disrupt those responsibilities,” he said. “The greater challenge is the frequent transfer of technical staff, who are essential to the commission’s work.”

The National Human Rights Commission and the National Inclusion Commission, along with commissions representing Madhesi, Tharu and Muslim communities, are primarily responsible for advising on policy and monitoring government performance.

Ram Krishna Timalsena, former chairperson of the National Inclusion Commission, said prolonged vacancies prevented these institutions from performing beyond routine administrative functions.

“The government immediately pays attention to long-established institutions such as the Public Service Commission and the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority,” Timilsena said. “But the commissions created under the new Constitution have never been treated as a priority. There remains a perception that they were established merely as part of a political compromise during constitution drafting rather than because they were genuinely necessary. That mindset explains why appointments are repeatedly delayed.”

The government introduced the ordinance to make appointments easier.

Previously, the six-member Constitutional Council required a quorum of five members, including the chair. The ordinance lowered the quorum requirement to four members, including the chair. It also introduced a provision allowing decisions to be approved if at least three members, including the chair, voted in favour.

The Constitutional Council is chaired by the prime minister and comprises the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the chief justice, the chair of the National Assembly, the deputy speaker and the leader of the main opposition. When recommending a chief justice, the law minister also participates as a member.

National Assembly Chair Narayan Dahal comes from the Nepal Communist Party background, while Deputy Speaker Rubi Kumari Thakur was elected from the Shram Sanskriti Party. During the meeting that recommended the chief justice, Thakur supported the prime minister’s proposal, whereas Dahal and opposition leader Angdembe expressed dissent.

The ordinance amending the Constitutional Council Act is currently under parliamentary consideration. Under the Constitution, both houses must approve the ordinance before a replacement bill can be introduced. Opposition parties have registered a motion in the National Assembly seeking to reject the ordinance, but no further action has been taken.

Because the ruling Rastriya Swatantra Party has no representation in the National Assembly, the ordinance faces the possibility of rejection. Under the Constitution, rejection by either house automatically invalidates an ordinance.

Even if neither chamber takes a decision, an ordinance automatically lapses if no action is taken within 60 days of its tabling in both houses. The government tabled eight ordinances, including the Constitutional Council ordinance, in Parliament on May 11.

Jhakku Prasad Subedi, parliamentary party leader of the Nepal Communist Party in the National Assembly, said the proposal to reject the ordinance had not advanced because it was not among the government’s legislative priorities.

“It is the government that decides which parliamentary business moves forward and which does not,” Subedi said. “Since this has not been prioritised, the process of either approving or rejecting the ordinance has not progressed. The opposition parties will formulate a common position whenever the government is ready.”