Jhapat Rawal States: Prime Minister’s Attendance in Parliament Is a Constitutional Duty, Not a Choice
News Summary
Prepared after review.
- Former MP Jhapat Rawal stated in parliament that the Prime Minister attending sessions is not optional but a constitutional obligation.
- Rawal highlighted Article 76(10) of the constitution, emphasizing that the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers are collectively accountable to the House of Representatives.
- He described the parliament as the highest representative institution responsible for questioning, reviewing, and holding the government accountable.
April 13, Kathmandu – Former Member of Parliament Jhapat Rawal has asserted that the Prime Minister’s presence in parliament is not a matter of choice.
According to him, Nepal’s constitution does not merely regard the Prime Minister as the person who runs the government but establishes the post as an executive leadership fully accountable to the House of Representatives.
Rawal wrote on social media, “As per Article 76(10) of the constitution, the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers are collectively responsible to the House of Representatives. This means state power is exercised not by the will or ego of an individual officeholder, but through a parliament elected by the people.”
He views the democratic framework as one where parliament is not only a legislative body but also the supreme representative institution responsible for questioning, reviewing, overseeing, and correcting the government when necessary.
He stated, “Therefore, attending parliament, responding to raised questions, defending policies and programs, and accepting criticism are not desires of the Prime Minister but constitutional duties.”
Rawal also cited the spirit of Rules 38 and 56 of the House of Representatives’ Operating Procedures as reinforcing this responsibility.
“The provision that the Prime Minister or relevant ministers must clearly respond to matters raised in parliament is the foundation of democratic accountability,” he added. “Considering parliament merely formal or neglecting it ultimately weakens public trust and constitutional ethos.”
He emphasized that neither majority power nor authority grants anyone exemption from accountability under Nepal’s constitution and laws, saying, “No state institution can be above the law, nor should it be.”
Highlighting the supremacy of the law as the basis of a democratic state and noting that the current parliament was formed under this constitutional and legal framework, Rawal appealed to the government’s attention.
He concluded, “The Prime Minister may be the center of power but cannot be above the constitution. In democracy, responsibility outweighs position. Respect for parliament is respect for the constitution, without which democracy may exist in form but will weaken in practice.”
