Eleven years after the Constitution of Nepal was promulgated, debates surrounding its amendment remain confined to political speeches and working papers, with no tangible roadmap or cross-party consensus in sight.

Although major political entities—the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), the Nepali Congress, the CPN-UML, and the Nepali Communist Party (NCP)—have consistently highlighted constitutional reform in their political documents, concrete plans and a conducive political environment remain elusive.

In March 2026, the Balendra Shah-led government unveiled a 100-point administrative reform agenda, which included a commitment to formulate an official discussion paper to build national consensus on constitutional amendments. Following a Cabinet decision on March 30, a task force was formed under Asim Shah, PM’s political adviser. The task force began its work on April 8 and submitted its report on July 16. However, the government has yet to make the report public.

The report proposes to amend 245 of the constitution’s 308 articles—nearly 80 percent of the statute. This sweeping scope has alarmed the political parties that originally drafted and passed the 2015 charter. Mainstream forces, including the Congress, the UML, the NCP and several Madhesh-based parties, have publicly questioned the government’s intent, asking whether the exercise aims to amend the constitution or rewrite it entirely.

The debate over constitutional reform is hardly new. Previous ruling coalitions, including the Congress-UML alliance, were formed on the explicit promise of revising the statute. Despite governing for 14 months with a combined legislative majority, that coalition failed to form even a preliminary committee dedicated to constitutional review.

The political landscape changed dramatically following last year’s Gen Z movement. Triggered by widespread anger over systemic corruption, bad governance, and long-standing lack of accountability, the movement toppled the KP Sharma Oli-led government and triggered the dissolution of the House of Representatives. The subsequent elections on March 5 established a new political order.

PM Shah assumed office with nearly a two-thirds majority in the House of Representatives, making constitutional reform a central plank of his administration's platform. However, despite initiating the process with the task force, the government continues to struggle with deep suspicions from opposition parties.

When the task force was initially announced, the government called for representation of all parliamentary parties. However, the Congress refused to send a representative. Although the UML named one, its representative boycotted all proceedings. Representatives from the NCP, the Loktantrik Samajbadi Party (LSP), the Janata Samajbadi Party (JSP) Nepal, and the Rastriya Janamorcha initially attended preliminary meetings but later withdrew entirely.

A core reason for this distrust is that the ruling RSP was born after the 2015 constitution. Emerging just six months prior to the 2022 general elections, seven years after the charter was adopted, the RSP is viewed by traditional parties as an outsider attempting to dismantle the constitutional framework. The leaders of traditional parties suspect that the government’s task force is intended to fundamentally alter the state structure.

Addressing these concerns, task force coordinator Shah said the panel was never tasked with drafting amendments directly, but rather with preparing a discussion paper.

“Our objective was to put together a discussion paper that serves as reference material for a future constitutional drafting commission,” Shah said. “The report, which will be released in the coming days, simply documents every submission received during consultations.”

The PM adviser revealed that the panel received a wide spectrum of proposals, ranging from the restoration of constitutional monarchy to thorough revisions in the governance model, electoral system, executive presidency, vice presidency, and independent constitutional commissions.

“The government is fully aware that no constitutional amendment can occur without broad national consensus. This report is merely a preliminary preparatory step. The government has no intention of rushing this process or imposing unilateral changes,” he said.

Amending the constitution requires a two-thirds supermajority in both houses of the federal parliament. While the ruling RSP holds near two-thirds strength in the lower house, it has zero representation in the National Assembly. To bypass this hurdle, an amendment was previously introduced to the House of Representatives regulations to calculate the two-thirds threshold based on a combined vote of both houses. However, the Supreme Court has stayed implementation of that rule, ruling it unconstitutional.

Constitutional experts argue that the government's secrecy and lack of clarity deepen the current stalemate. Bipin Adhikari, a constitutional expert, said that the absence of a clear government stance prevents constructive debate among political parties and the wider public.

“Because the government has failed to present a clear vision on which specific areas need amendment, discussions remain vague and unproductive,” said Adhikari. “By compiling a discussion paper, withholding it from the public, and refusing to state its official position, the government risks reducing this critical process to a mere talking shop.”

Adhikari described the task force report as a preliminary mapping exercise rather than an actionable reform document. “Given the current political realities, it is unlikely the government can move forward solely on the basis of its strength in the House of Representatives,” he said. “To build a national perspective, the government must clarify its stance. Once the government puts forward a formal proposal, the media will take it to every household, generating public debate and encouraging intellectual institutions to weigh in. Without that clarity, the effort lacks political seriousness.”

Adhikari added that 11 years of application have exposed systemic instability at both federal and provincial levels. He suggested that given Nepal's geopolitical sensitivities and social diversity, the nation should retain the parliamentary system at the federal level while considering a directly elected executive model at the provincial level to ensure stability.

“Except for the initial terms, no provincial government has remained stable,” said Adhikari. “Frequent changes in leadership were driven by central party strategies rather than local mandates, undermining provincial accountability. Directly elected provincial executives would insulate provincial governance from federal political manoeuvres.”

Senior advocate and constitution expert Chandra Kanta Gyawali emphasised that delaying constitutional review could imperil the survival of the statute itself, citing historical precedents.

“A constitutional review every ten years is standard practice across democratic nations with written constitutions,” said Gyawali. “The fate of the 1990 constitution serves as a stark warning of what happens when a system fails to adapt in time. Nepal must not delay reviewing the implementation gaps of the past decade.”

Gyawali explained that the first five years of a constitution focus on establishing norms and primary institutions, while the subsequent five years expose practical operational defects.

“The spirit of our constitution envisions periodic reviews,” said Gyawali. “For instance, it explicitly mandates a review of inclusion commissions after ten years. This principle applies broadly to the entire charter to correct systemic flaws.”

He suggested that if the current mixed electoral system is retained, Nepal should consider transitioning to a directly elected executive model to prevent perpetual parliamentary paralysis. He also called for revising the single and concurrent rights listed in the constitution’s schedules to provide genuine autonomy to provincial and local governments.

“Under the current practice, provinces experienced only semi-federalism,” Gyawali noted. “Powers remain concentrated at the center. Without structural decentralisation, the federal model cannot deliver.”

The 2015 constitution has undergone two formal amendments since its promulgation. The first amendment, adopted in 2016, addressed demands from Madhesh-based parties by incorporating the provision for proportional inclusion in state bodies.

The second amendment, passed unanimously in June 2020, updated the official national emblem and map in Schedule 3 to include the areas of Limpiyadhura, Kalapani and Lipulekh. A subsequent amendment bill introduced prior to the 2022 general elections failed to secure the necessary two-thirds majority due to political disagreements.

Constitutional amendments have frequently been used as political bargaining chips during coalition negotiations rather than structured institutional reforms. Previous attempts to modify provisions regarding citizenship, language, and provincial demarcations consistently stalled due to mistrust between ruling and opposition blocs.

The political parties now remain deeply divided over the direction of reform. The Nepali Congress and the UML favour retaining the parliamentary model, republican framework, and mixed electoral system, advocating only for minor adjustments to clear up administrative overlaps, reduce the size of provincial assemblies, and streamline executive appointments.

The NCP and the JSP Nepal continue to advocate for a directly elected executive head and a fully proportional electoral system, positions they have maintained since the Constituent Assembly debates. The Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) demands the restoration of constitutional monarchy and the re-establishment of a Hindu state, alongside the abolition of provincial structures.

Meanwhile, the RSP supports a directly elected executive president, though opinion within the party regarding provincial structures remains divided between reforming subnational governance and abolishing provincial assemblies altogether—a proposal formally endorsed by Vice Chairman Swarnim Wagle at the party's recent Chitwan convention.

Opposition leaders have openly criticised the government’s secretiveness regarding the task force report. Bhishmaraj Angdembe, Nepali Congress Parliamentary Party leader in the House of Representatives, accused the government of undermining constitutional norms.

“The task force created under the guise of preparing a discussion paper has produced recommendations that attack the core essence and democratic foundation of the constitution,” said Angdembe. “The Nepali Congress will not support any attempt to arbitrarily tamper with the basic structure of the statute. While we support amendments needed to broaden its ownership, destabilising the constitutional core under the pretext of reform is unacceptable.”

UML leader Surya Thapa recalled that during the previous Congress-UML coalition, a seven-point agreement was signed to spot constitutional flaws. The UML formed a taskforce headed by Bishnu Paudel to work on amendments.

However, those efforts did not survive changing political dynamics.

“While the UML recognises the need for review, we will not allow the fundamental sensitivity of the charter to be eroded,” said Thapa. “Even under the previous administration, our leadership clearly stated that a comprehensive amendment would only be realistic when two-thirds support is secured across both houses.”

Despite sharp disagreements, there is broad consensus among major parties on administrative reforms, such as refining the distribution of powers between federal, provincial, and local authorities. Most parties agree on reducing the number of local units, downsizing provincial assemblies, trimming their cabinet sizes, and clarifying jurisdiction over shared civil service and security portfolios.

Asim Shah reiterated that the government remains committed to an incremental, consensus-driven approach. “Our goal is to prioritise issues where national consensus exists and move forward with amendments on those points first,” he said. “Controversial matters can remain subject to ongoing public debate. The narrative created by opposition parties that the government intends to rewrite the entire constitution is incorrect.”