Four and a half months after Prime Minister Balendra Shah took office, his government finds itself facing mounting criticism over its style of governance, with opponents, constitutional experts and political analysts accusing it of sidelining democratic institutions while pursuing rapid reforms.

Since assuming office on March 27, the government has presented itself as an administration determined to overhaul Nepal’s governance system through swift structural changes. But many of its major decisions over the past 130 days have sparked controversy, prompting questions about transparency, accountability and adherence to constitutional procedures.

Critics say the government has increasingly relied on social media to communicate major policy decisions, often creating confusion over official processes. The prime minister’s Facebook posts have regularly featured policy announcements, political commentary and responses to controversies, leading opponents to accuse him of attempting to govern through social media rather than established state institutions.

One of the earliest controversies came during the joint sitting of Parliament on May 11, when Shah walked out while President Ramchandra Paudel was still delivering the government’s annual policies and programmes. The move was widely criticised by opposition parties and constitutional experts as a breach of parliamentary decorum and state protocol.

Another dispute followed the government’s decision to introduce a three percent tax on private education and healthcare services through the national budget. The proposal drew widespread public criticism, with opponents arguing that it would make essential services more expensive.

Amid growing pressure, the government withdrew the tax. However, the decision itself generated fresh criticism after Shah announced on Facebook that the “Education and Health Equity Tax” would be scrapped a day before the Cabinet formally approved the reversal, raising concerns that major executive decisions were being announced before completing official procedures.

Arjun Dhooj Aryal, an assistant professor at Tribhuvan University’s Central Department of Political Science, said governments must build consensus instead of relying on unilateral decisions.

“An executive should move forward by taking political parties, institutions and society into confidence,” Aryal said, arguing that governance through executive announcements and public messaging risks undermining institutional checks and balances.

The government’s handling of communal violence in Madhesh has emerged as another major subject of criticism.

The unrest began on July 26 in Dewanganj, Sunsari, after a dispute between two local communities escalated into violence. Police opened fire while trying to control the situation, killing Om Prakash Mehta. His death triggered protests that spread to several districts across Madhesh and Koshi provinces, disrupting normal life for nearly a week.

As tensions escalated, critics questioned the government’s response, saying senior leaders were slow to engage with the crisis. Neither Prime Minister Shah nor Home Minister Sudan Gurung visited the affected areas during the early days of the unrest.

Shah addressed the nation only on July 30, five days after the violence began. On the same day, Gurung travelled to Madhesh to begin talks with local leaders. By then, however, the unrest had spread to Golbazar in Siraha, where another person had died.

The week-long violence claimed four lives, including 15-year-old Ganesh Yadav of Aurahi Rural Municipality. Dozens of protesters and security personnel were injured, while public and private property was damaged in arson and vandalism. District administrations imposed curfews and prohibitory orders in several districts from Parsa to Dhanusha to contain the unrest.

In his address, Shah promised an impartial investigation into the deaths, pledged action against those responsible for inciting violence and appealed to the public not to spread communal hatred on social media. Peace talks led by the Home Ministry gradually helped restore normalcy.

Even so, the delayed response drew criticism from local residents, lawmakers and opposition leaders, who argued that quicker political intervention could have prevented further escalation.

The government’s handling of the crisis became a major political issue on July 30 when Rastriya Swatantra Party chair Rabi Lamichhane convened an all-party meeting at Singha Durbar to discuss the deteriorating security situation. Opposition leaders argued that such an initiative should have been led by the prime minister himself.

Before addressing the nation, Shah’s only public comments on the violence had come through Facebook, where he wrote that the government’s foremost duty was to ensure public security, punish those responsible and provide justice and compensation to victims.

Following the all-party meeting, opposition leaders accused the government of failing to provide timely leadership during one of the country’s most serious security crises in recent months.

Nepali Congress president Gagan Thapa questioned the prime minister’s absence during the early days of the unrest.

“Should a prime minister remain distant and act like an overlord during such a sensitive national crisis, when he should instead be leading the response?” Thapa told reporters after the meeting.

Aryal also argued that prompt political leadership could have reduced the scale of the violence.

“If the prime minister had intervened immediately with empathy and decisive leadership, the communal tension in Sunsari and neighbouring districts could have been contained much earlier,” he said.

Parliamentary absence and diplomatic controversy deepen scrutiny

Prime Minister Shah’s relationship with Parliament has become another major source of political contention, with opposition parties accusing him of repeatedly avoiding legislative scrutiny while choosing other platforms to defend key government decisions.

Since the new Parliament convened, opposition lawmakers have repeatedly demanded that the head of the government appear in the House of Representatives to answer questions on government policy, national security and executive actions. Instead, critics say, Prime Minister Shah has often delegated those responsibilities to ministers or responded through public speeches and social media.

The issue first came to the fore during deliberations on the government’s annual policies and programmes in May. The parliamentary agenda circulated before the sitting indicated that Shah would respond to lawmakers’ questions. However, the schedule was changed at the last minute, and Finance Minister Swarnim Wagle answered on behalf of the government.

The incident followed another controversy on May 11, when Shah walked out of the joint session of Parliament while President Ramchandra Paudel was still delivering the government’s policy address. His secretariat and Finance Minister Wagle later said the prime minister had left because of a sudden health problem, but opposition lawmakers remained unconvinced, particularly as Shah stayed away from key parliamentary proceedings during the budget session.

After weeks of absence following the presentation of the national budget on May 29, Shah unexpectedly appeared in the House of Representatives on May 31 to answer lawmakers’ questions.

Rather than easing tensions, the session triggered one of the government’s most significant diplomatic controversies.

While responding to questions on border management and Nepal’s territorial disputes with India, Shah told Parliament that he had learned after becoming prime minister that “not only has India encroached on Nepal’s land, but Nepal has also encroached on India’s land in multiple places.”

The remarks prompted immediate criticism from lawmakers across the political spectrum, who described the statement as unsubstantiated and potentially damaging to Nepal’s long-standing diplomatic position on border disputes.

Opposition parties demanded that the prime minister return to Parliament to clarify his remarks and apologise, arguing that such statements required clear evidence and careful diplomatic handling.

Instead of addressing the issue in the House, Shah responded weeks later at the inaugural convention of Rastriya Swatantra Party in Chitwan on June 21.

Speaking to party supporters, he defended his commitment to Nepal’s territorial claims and said there should be no doubt about his nationalism.

“When we raise border issues, the neighbouring country naturally shows interest,” Shah said. “We have evidence regarding Kalapani and Lipulekh. If we need to retrieve documents from the period of British rule, we will do so. We are not asking the British to mediate. We will resolve these matters directly with our neighbours.”

His remarks, however, did little to satisfy opposition lawmakers, who argued that explanations on matters of national importance should be delivered in Parliament rather than at a party gathering.

The issue resurfaced on July 30, when opposition parties again demanded the prime minister’s presence in the House, this time over the communal unrest in Sunsari and other districts of Madhesh.

Lawmakers from the Nepali Congress, CPN-UML, Nepali Communist Party, Rastriya Prajatantra Party and other parties protested in Parliament, accusing the government of failing to brief the legislature on one of the country’s most serious security crises in recent months.

NCP lawmaker Gopal Sharma said that as the sovereign representative body, Parliament had the right to receive a full account of the government’s handling of the violence.

“The Sunsari incident has shaken the entire country,” Sharma said in the House. “In such a sensitive situation, the prime minister should have come to Parliament to inform the sovereign House about the incident and the overall situation. But where is our prime minister?”

Opposition leaders argue that Shah’s repeated absence has weakened parliamentary accountability at a time when the government has been making far-reaching policy decisions.

Political analysts say the criticism is less about the number of appearances than about the message they send regarding the executive’s relationship with the legislature.

Under Nepal’s parliamentary system, they argue, the prime minister is expected to defend government policies, answer lawmakers’ questions and remain accountable to Parliament, particularly during national crises or controversies involving foreign policy.

Ordinances, appointments and allegations of executive overreach

Despite commanding the support of a coalition close to a two-thirds majority in Parliament, the Balendra Shah government has faced criticism for increasingly relying on ordinances and centralised decision-making instead of legislative processes.

The controversy began in April when the government abruptly prorogued a parliamentary session just a day after it had been summoned for April 30. Soon afterwards, the Cabinet recommended eight ordinances to President Ramchandra Paudel, four of which were promulgated.

The move prompted criticism from constitutional experts, who questioned why the government chose to bypass Parliament despite enjoying a comfortable majority.

Constitutional expert Bipin Adhikari said at the time that dissolving a session that had already been called solely to promulgate ordinances undermined parliamentary practice.

“If that was not the intention, the government should explain why it prorogued Parliament,” Adhikari told Kantipur. “A government with such a large majority should not avoid the legislature. It should be setting an example of parliamentary governance.”

The government’s use of the ordinances had immediate administrative consequences. On May 2, around 1,500 office bearers serving in public boards, state-owned enterprises and autonomous agencies were removed from their positions.

More than three months later, many of those vacancies remain unfilled, raising concerns over delays in decision-making and the functioning of several public institutions.

The appointments that have been made have also attracted criticism.

Although the government pledged to introduce a transparent, merit-based appointment system, opposition leaders and governance experts argue that several appointments have instead reflected political considerations.

One frequently cited example is the High Powered Committee for Integrated Development of the Bagmati Civilisation, where the government appointed Anand Singh Bhat as executive chairman despite another candidate topping the official merit list prepared by the selection committee.

Questions have also been raised over appointments to the Shahid Dashrath Chand University of Medical Sciences, the Security Printing Centre, the Guthi Sansthan, the Health Insurance Board, Nepal Scouts and the Tribhuvan University Service Commission.

Critics argue that some appointments favoured individuals with political links to the ruling Rastriya Swatantra Party, contradicting the administration’s promise to depoliticise public institutions.

Another recurring criticism concerns the growing influence of the prime minister’s secretariat.

Although the government won praise early in its tenure for reducing the number of ministries from 21 to 18, opponents say the savings were offset by allowing ministers to retain large personal secretariats staffed with political advisers.

The prime minister’s secretariat, in particular, has faced allegations of interfering in bureaucratic decisions, procurement processes and the work of independent institutions.

The most prominent example centres on the procurement of Nepal’s new electronic passports.

The Department of Passports awarded the contract to German firms Veridos and Mühlbauer on June 6, 2025. Members of the prime minister’s secretariat later questioned the procurement process, alleging financial irregularities and claiming the companies would be unable to deliver the passports on time.

On June 15, senior officials from the secretariat convened a meeting at the Prime Minister’s Office attended by representatives of the Department of Passports, the two German companies and senior officials of the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA).

According to critics, the meeting placed pressure on the anti-graft body to investigate the procurement and initiate legal action against officials involved.

The CIAA arrested former department’s director general Tirtha Raj Aryal the same day and later filed corruption cases against 18 people, including civil servants and representatives of the German firms.

However, the government’s position came under renewed scrutiny on June 29 when the Special Court released Aryal and the other defendants on bail, citing insufficient grounds for continued detention.

Meanwhile, the German companies proceeded with the production and delivery of Nepal’s electronic passports, despite earlier claims that they would be unable to fulfil the contract.

Subsequent reports also alleged that the PMO had pressed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Passports to cancel the procurement process.

The controversy intensified after Shah publicly defended the actions of his secretariat during the Rastriya Swatantra Party’s national convention in Chitwan on June 21.

Referring to the CIAA, he said that if necessary, authorities could question anti-corruption officials for “five hours” or even “five years”, adding that any such action would remain within the law.

The remarks prompted fresh criticism from opposition leaders and governance experts, who argued that independent constitutional bodies should be allowed to function without political pressure.

Demolitions, controversial appointments and a demoralised bureaucracy

Several of the Shah government’s domestic policies have also come under scrutiny, particularly its handling of informal settlements, the civil service and high-profile political appointments.

Less than a month after taking office, the government launched a drive to clear informal settlements along the Bagmati River and other waterways in the Kathmandu Valley, deploying bulldozers to demolish structures occupied by landless families.

The operation was criticised by rights groups and legal experts, who argued that the evictions were carried out without adequate rehabilitation plans or alternative housing for displaced residents. With the demolitions taking place at the start of the monsoon, hundreds of families were forced into temporary shelters, triggering protests that continued for months.

Writing in Kantipur on May 10, legal scholar Ritesh Panthi described the government’s approach as unconstitutional and inconsistent with the rights guaranteed to vulnerable communities.

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) also urged the government to halt forced evictions, protect the rights of displaced families and develop a comprehensive rehabilitation plan.

The controversy deepened after flooding inundated a temporary holding centre in Kirtipur on July 1. Gen Z activist Majid Ansari visited the site to assess conditions and distribute relief before being detained by police.

Human rights organisations and civil society groups condemned the incident after Ansari alleged he had been assaulted in custody. He was later admitted to Maharajgunj-based Teaching Hospital for treatment and released following intervention by the NHRC.

The case exposed divisions within the ruling coalition, with RSP lawmaker Sulabh Kharel publicly questioning the police response to the incident.

The government also faced criticism over a stricter enforcement of customs rules along the Nepal-India border.

Beginning in April, Armed Police Force personnel stationed at border crossings announced that goods worth more than Rs100 brought from India would be subject to customs duties and inspection.

The move angered residents of border districts, many of whom regularly cross into India for small household purchases. Business groups, including the Federation of Nepalese Chambers of Commerce and Industry, described the threshold as impractical and harmful to local economies.

Following protests from traders and local residents, enforcement of the measure was gradually relaxed in several border areas.

Questions have also persisted over the government’s decision to reappoint Home Minister Gurung.

Gurung resigned on April 22 after allegations relating to unexplained wealth and stock market transactions. The government subsequently formed an inquiry committee headed by former judge Achyut Prasad Bhandari.

On June 9, the Cabinet accepted the committee’s report, but did not make it public. Gurung was reappointed home minister on the same day, prompting opposition criticism over the government’s refusal to disclose the findings before restoring him to office.

Speaking in the National Assembly on June 15, Congress chief whip Padam Bahadur Pariyar questioned the decision, saying Parliament and the public had a right to know the contents of the investigation report before Gurung’s reinstatement.

The home minister’s return attracted further scrutiny after an NHRC panel investigating the Gen-Z protests of September 8 and 9 reportedly recommended action against him. NHRC Commissioner Lili Thapa later questioned whether investigations could remain impartial when an individual facing scrutiny headed the ministry responsible for law enforcement.

The government’s handling of another high-profile case also came under criticism after the Department of Money Laundering Investigation arrested former finance minister and CPN-UML Vice-Chair Bishnu Prasad Paudel on June 22.

Paudel spent 25 days in custody before the Special Court ordered his release on July 17, citing insufficient primary evidence to support the prosecution’s case.

Within the civil service, uncertainty over possible reforms has fuelled growing unease.

Reports that the government was considering mandatory retirement after 30 years of service or at the age of 55 prompted a wave of resignation requests from senior bureaucrats, although no such policy has been implemented.

The appointment of Govinda Bahadur Karki as chief secretary on July 8 also drew criticism after several more senior secretaries were overlooked. A day later, prime minister’s political adviser Asim Shah presided over the farewell ceremony for outgoing chief secretary Suman Raj Aryal, an unusual role for a political appointee that some former bureaucrats described as a breach of administrative convention.

Tensions within the bureaucracy deepened following the arrest of former secretary Krishna Hari Pushkar over a text message sent to the prime minister, while proposed changes affecting civil service unions and increased monitoring of government employees further contributed to unease among career officials.

By mid-July, frustration had spilled into public protest, with hundreds of contract employees demonstrating inside the Singha Durbar complex before reaching an agreement with the government over their employment.

Judicial reversals and policy defeats

The administration’s aggressive policy moves have repeatedly faced setbacks in the Supreme Court, exposing concerns over executive overreach and weak institutional consultation.

On April 1, the Cabinet approved a directive restricting all government advertisements and public notices to state-owned media outlets, effectively cutting off a major source of revenue for independent private media organisations. Media groups, press freedom advocates and constitutional lawyers challenged the move, arguing that it threatened media pluralism and violated constitutional protections. On July 14, the Supreme Court overturned the directive, ruling it unconstitutional and discriminatory.

The government also suffered a setback over its attempt to ban student political organisations. As part of its 100-point “governance reform agenda”, the Cabinet issued a decree prohibiting political student unions and Free Student Unions (FSU) in state universities and educational institutions. The decision sparked protests and nationwide strikes by student groups. The Supreme Court later stayed the order, stating that the executive could not curtail constitutional rights of association through administrative decisions.

Political analyst Sanjeev Humagain said the government came to power with strong public expectations but has struggled to convert that mandate into effective democratic governance.

“This government came to power by rightfully questioning the political, economic and social failures of the past three to four decades,” Humagain said. “But a popular mandate does not allow a government to ignore institutional processes, bypass Parliament or govern through executive decrees and social media announcements.”

He said the administration’s claim of being on a learning curve was becoming increasingly difficult for the public to accept. “Structural reform requires institutional consensus, respect for the judiciary and administrative competence, not arbitrary force,” he said