Nepal’s opposition parties have moved to block all eight ordinances introduced by the government, escalating both legal and political pressure on the ruling party after registering notices in both Houses of the federal parliament seeking their rejection.

The opposition strategy centres on blocking the ordinances in the National Assembly, where the ruling Rastriya Swatantra Party has no representation despite holding a commanding majority in the House of Representatives.

On Wednesday, lawmakers from the CPN-UML registered notices seeking rejection of all eight ordinances, while the Nepali Congress opposed two and the Nepali Communist Party opposed four.

Under Article 114(2)(a) of Nepal’s constitution, ordinances issued by the government must be endorsed by both Houses of the federal parliament. Rejection by either House automatically renders an ordinance inactive.

“The ordinance shall be tabled at the session of both Houses of the Federal Parliament held after the promulgation, and if not passed by both Houses, it shall ipso facto cease to be effective,” the constitutional provision states.

Legal experts say that if the ordinances fail in the National Assembly, all legal amendments introduced through them will revert to the previous laws. However, actions already completed under the ordinances, including the recommendation of a chief justice and cancellation of political appointments, are unlikely to be reversed automatically.

Only ordinances endorsed by the National Assembly can later be replaced within 60 days through formal replacement bills. For ordinances rejected by the Upper House, the government would have to introduce entirely new legislation if it wishes to retain the same provisions.

Legal precedent established by the Supreme Court suggests that if no replacement legislation is introduced, the previous laws automatically revive.

Unlike ordinances, ordinary bills do not require approval from both Houses in the same way. Even if the National Assembly rejects an amendment bill, the House of Representatives can pass it again and forward it to the president for authentication.

Opposition divided on whether to reject all ordinances

Despite the coordinated challenge, opposition parties have yet to agree on whether to oppose all eight ordinances collectively or selectively target some of them.

The Nepali Congress has registered notices opposing only the ordinance related to the Constitutional Council and another amending multiple existing laws. The notice was signed by all Congress lawmakers present in the National Assembly.

UML lawmakers, however, registered notices against all eight ordinances, arguing that the government committed a serious procedural violation by suspending a parliament session that had already been summoned and then introducing ordinances instead.

The government had promulgated ordinances amending laws related to the Constitutional Council, removal of public office holders, public procurement, cooperatives, universities, health science academies, money laundering and several other laws.

Prem Prasad Dangal, leader of the UML parliamentary party in the National Assembly, said the party could remain flexible on ordinances related to cooperatives, public procurement and money laundering. But he said UML’s broader position was that all ordinances should be rejected because the process itself was flawed.

“We will try to build a common position with other parties,” Dangal said. “If that does not happen, some ordinances can still be considered separately. But we will reject all those of a serious nature. The three major parties can unite on that.”

Jhakku Prasad Subedi, parliamentary leader of the Nepali Communist Party in the National Assembly, said his party had registered notices against ordinances related to the Constitutional Council, amendments to multiple laws, removal of public office holders and universities.

Congress’ parliamentary party leader Kamaladevi Pant said discussions were continuing on whether to support the broader UML position rejecting all ordinances.

“We may reject everything now. They can still pass the bills they want,” Pant said. “The chief justice has already been recommended. Political appointments have already been cancelled.”

She said opposition parties were also trying to bring smaller parties represented in the National Assembly into a common position, including the Rastriya Janamorcha, Janata Samajbadi Party-Nepal and Loktantrik Samajbadi Party.

If smaller opposition parties also back the move, the ordinances could potentially be rejected unanimously.

National Assembly chair Narayan Prasad Dahal said discussion on the rejection notices has tentatively been scheduled for May 21. If the House passes the rejection proposals by majority vote, the ordinances would become inactive from that day.

“May 21 is only a tentative date,” Dahal said. “An ordinance remains valid for 60 days under the constitutional framework. Before that, Parliament must also take up the budget principles, priorities and other pre-budget matters. The discussion may be held that day, if those are completed, it could be delayed by a day or two.”

Constitutional Council ordinance at centre of dispute

The opposition’s primary target is the ordinance amending the Constitutional Council Act.

The government amended provisions governing quorum and decision-making procedures in the council, which recommends appointments to constitutional bodies.

Under the amended provision, the council can hold a meeting if four members, including the chair, are present. Decisions can then be made by majority vote among those present, meaning as few as three members can approve appointments.

Opposition parties have strongly objected to the ordinance’s definition of majority. They argue the amendment effectively allows the prime minister’s position to prevail even in a split meeting where three members support and three oppose a proposal.

Critics say the arrangement violates democratic principles of majority rule.

Following promulgation of the ordinance, Prime Minister Balendra Shah, who chairs the Constitutional Council, convened a meeting and recommended Supreme Court Justice Manoj Sharma, fourth in seniority, for appointment as chief justice.

The government has also initiated appointment processes in universities, health science academies, tourism and cultural bodies based on the ordinances.

Through another ordinance concerning the removal of public office holders, as well as amendments to multiple laws, the government cancelled more than 1,500 political appointments made by the previous administration.

Legal experts say completed actions likely to remain valid

Senior advocate Satish Krishna Kharel said that if the National Assembly rejects the ordinances, the government would no longer be able to proceed under the amended legal framework.

“Whatever actions have already been completed will continue unless overturned by a court or another legal mechanism,” Kharel said. “But all pending and ongoing processes would stop immediately.”

He said that if appointment procedures remain incomplete when the ordinances lapse, they would halt at whatever stage they had reached.

“After that, the government would either need to bring a new bill or proceed under the previous laws,” he added.

Kharel said political appointments already cancelled under the ordinances would not automatically be reinstated simply because the ordinances become inactive.

He argued that the government’s main objective had been to remove political appointees rather than make new appointments.

“The removals will remain effective even if the ordinances lapse. The government can still make future appointments under the old laws,” he said. “Unless the Supreme Court rules that the ordinances themselves were introduced in bad faith and orders reinstatement, the government may not face major practical difficulties.”

Advocate Pratap Paudel said the government would need to introduce new legislation if it wanted to keep provisions introduced through the ordinances intact.

He said the lapse of the Constitutional Council ordinance would not obstruct the ongoing chief justice appointment process but would make future constitutional appointments more difficult.

Under the previous law, the council required the chair and four other members for a quorum, while decisions had to be made by a majority of the council’s total membership if consensus could not be reached.

At present, 17 positions across 13 constitutional commissions remain vacant, including leadership posts in the National Natural Resources and Fiscal Commission, Muslim Commission, Tharu Commission, Madheshi Commission and National Inclusion Commission.

Without support from opposition parties, legal experts say the prime minister would struggle to secure Constitutional Council decisions on those appointments.

Trade union provision sparks additional criticism

One of the ordinances amending multiple laws also abolishes trade unions in the civil service by amending the Civil Service Act.

The Nepali Congress has objected to the move, saying it contradicts the spirit of the Constitution.

However, opposing that ordinance would also nullify amendments made to 20 separate laws, including those related to land management, education, technical training, social security, health services, medical education, forests and civil service administration.

Legal and political concerns also extend to land-related amendments. Opposition leaders say the lapse of the ordinance could disrupt efforts to address issues involving landless squatters.

Through amendments to the Land Act, the government dissolved the previous administration’s land commissions and cancelled more than 450 political appointments tied to those bodies.

The earlier government had formed a central Land Problem Settlement Commission and committees in all 77 districts, appointing more than 450 officials nationwide.