As happened last year, Parliament is again on the brink of a deadlock, this time just two days before the national budget announcement.

In 2024, when Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal, the Maoist Centre chairman, was preparing to present the budget for the fiscal year 2024-25, the then main opposition, the Nepali Congress, was obstructing Parliament demanding a parliamentary probe into home minister and Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) chief Rabi Lamichhane for cooperative fraud.

Last year, on May 28, the government was able to present the budget smoothly only after reaching an agreement with the opposition parties to form a parliamentary investigation committee.

This time, opposition parties Maoist Centre and the RSP are demanding the resignation of Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak, who has been linked to a ‘visit visa scandal’.

Parliament remained obstructed on Tuesday, just two days before the budget for the fiscal year 2025-26 is scheduled to be presented. The constitution has designated a fixed date for the presentation of the national budget. This year, this day falls on Thursday.

Tuesday’s events echoed last year’s drama and laid bare the double standards Nepali political parties and their leaders show, depending on whether they are in power or in the opposition.

Last year, Congress lawmakers repeatedly denied Lamichhane an opportunity to speak. In response, the RSP had strongly protested, claiming that every elected representative has the right to speak in Parliament. Now the Congress is in government and the RSP is in opposition, and the latter seems to have conveniently forgotten the very values it once defended.

Lekhak released a video statement on Saturday, claiming innocence and expressing his intent to speak on the matter in Tuesday’s Parliament session. Yet he was not allowed to speak — and ironically, it was the RSP, the fourth largest party in Parliament, that led the charge to prevent him from doing so.

The Congress, for its part, is also being accused of failing to maintain moral consistency. The party has often demanded resignations from leaders of other parties on moral grounds. Yet, critics argue, Lekhak, a senior figure in the party, has chosen not to step down on the face of similar moral challenges.

However, the deputy leader of the RSP’s parliamentary party, Biraj Bhakta Shrestha, defended his party’s position, drawing a distinction between its past stance and Tuesday’s obstruction that prevented Home Minister Lekhak from speaking in Parliament.

“The case involving our party president, Lamichhane, and that of the current home minister, Lekhak, are fundamentally different,” Shrestha told the Post. “Lamichhane’s case dates back to a time before he entered politics, whereas Lekhak is facing allegations while currently holding the office of home minister. That is why we were not in favour of allowing him to address Parliament.”

Officials under Lekhak’s direct authority are under the investigation of the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) in connection with the visit visa scandal. Additionally, other individuals subordinate to him have been implicated.

In such a situation, the home minister’s personal involvement in the scandal cannot be ruled out, argues Shrestha. He emphasises that, so long as Lekhak remains in office, his office could be misused to destroy potential evidence against him. Therefore, Shrestha insists that Lekhak must resign as home minister.

Meanwhile, the Congress and the CPN-UML, which jointly lead the coalition government, have defended the home minister, arguing that the resignation of a minister is not warranted merely because a few ministry staffers have been implicated.

The UML’s Secretariat meeting held on Sunday, and the Congress’s office-bearers’ meeting on Monday, both decided to stand in support of the beleaguered home minister.

Nepali Congress spokesperson Prakash Sharan Mahat has also maintained that the cases involving Lekhak and Lamichhane are fundamentally different. Echoing both the parties’ positions and Lekhak’s own defence, Mahat stated that since the home minister has not been directly implicated in the visit visa scandal, he should not be held accountable for the misconduct of his subordinates.

“Home Minister Lekhak is not directly involved, and as the authorities are already investigating the matter, there is no need for him to resign on moral grounds,” Mahat told the Post.

Mahesh Bartaula, the chief UML whip, concurs.

The controversy surrounding Lekhak erupted after the CIAA, the constitutional anti-graft body, raided the TIA Immigration Office on May 22, following complaints of visit visa manipulation. During the raid, the CIAA detained Immigration Office chief and joint secretary, Tirtharaj Bhattarai, and seized vital documents.

Following Bhattarai’s arrest, the anti-graft body has also begun investigating staff from the home minister’s secretariat, raising questions about his moral responsibility in the case.

Bhattarai was taken into the CIAA’s custody a day after being transferred from the airport to the Ministry of Home Affairs. The anti-graft body claims to have uncovered evidence indicating that individuals were sent abroad on visit visas in exchange for large sums of money, in collusion with Bhattarai.

Bhattarai’s transfer to the home ministry while he was under CIAA investigation has fuelled suspicions of higher authorities’ involvement in the scam.

Amid the opposition’s obstruction, Tuesday's session of Parliament was adjourned until Wednesday. However, opposition parties have indicated that the disruption will likely continue Wednesday. That said, they have also made it clear that they will not obstruct the House during Thursday’s budget presentation.

RSP deputy parliamentary leader Shrestha stated that discussions had been held with Speaker Devraj Ghimire on Tuesday regarding the matter. “Given the constitutional obligation on budget presentation, we have agreed not to obstruct Thursday’s session,” he said.

“If the budget fails to be presented on the constitutionally mandated date, the government may be compelled to explore alternative routes, which could complicate the situation. Therefore, we are willing to show flexibility during the budget presentation,” Shrestha added.

On the issue of the budget presentation, Shakti Bahadur Basnet, deputy general secretary of the Maoist Centre, shared views that are similar to Shrestha’s.

Emphasising the government’s responsibility to create a conducive environment for the budget, Basnet stated, “The government must engage in dialogue with the opposition to ensure a favourable climate for the budget. It should explore whether there are alternative solutions to the current parliamentary impasse.”