Proposal to Remove Mandatory Attendance of Prime Minister and Ministers in Parliamentary Committees

Summary of the news has been prepared following editorial review. Labour Culture Party MPs protested in parliament with placards, reminding Prime Minister Shah of parliamentary decorum. The Draft Rules Committee of the House of Representatives has proposed removing the mandatory attendance of ministers, allowing parliamentary committees to convene without them. MPs expressed concerns that the absence of the Prime Minister in the question-and-answer sessions and policy discussions weakens parliamentary practice. Kathmandu, May 18 – On Monday, Labour Culture Party MPs appeared in the House of Representatives carrying placards. They protested against Prime Minister Balendra Shah’s (Balen) absence from parliament, reminding him of parliamentary decorum, albeit by somewhat breaching it themselves. In response, party chairman Hark Sampang explained, “Speaker sir, there may be curiosity about the placards. Whether parliament is sovereign or the government? Our effort is to hold the government accountable to the sovereign parliament.” MP Arun Rai reached the parliamentary rostrum with a placard on his chest reading, “Prime Minister must be accountable to parliament, cannot evade questions! Respect public opinion. Stop promulgating ordinances! Fulfill parliamentary responsibilities.”

There is debate over whether the style of protest with placards within parliament aligns with parliamentary decorum. During these discussions, activities of the ruling National Independent Party (RASWAPA) government also came under scrutiny. According to Communist Party MP Balawati Sharma and National Democratic Party MP Tahir Ali Bhat, three key issues have remained in parliamentary ‘notice’ for an extended period: first, the Prime Minister’s absence from government policy and program debates; second, a provision allowing parliamentary committees to convene without departmental ministers’ presence; and third, the indefinite status of direct question-and-answer sessions with the Prime Minister. On Monday, committee chairman Ganesh Prasad Parajuli presented a proposal to consider the Draft Rules Committee report of 2083 (2026 BS). In the ensuing theoretical debate, RASWAPA MP Bhat expressed, “What a paradox it is to draft rules so that the Prime Minister does not attend parliament and ministers are not required to attend parliamentary committees.”

Bhat urged that the tradition of ministerial attendance not be abandoned and cautioned against arrogance stemming from majority dominance, stating, “Let us not deviate from Rule 178(4) of the Rules; what was before should remain as is. If we impose this just because we have a two-thirds majority, it could lead to negative consequences.” Presently, ministers’ attendance is mandatory for parliamentary committee meetings. According to Rule 178, Subrule 4, ministers are required to be present during bill discussions and as needed for other agenda items. However, the proposed draft suggests allowing committees to convene without ministers’ mandatory attendance.

Rule 178 of the draft rules delineates the duties and powers of parliamentary subject committees, stipulating in Subrule 4 the ministers’ mandatory presence during bill discussions and discretionary presence otherwise. Breaking tradition, Communist Party MP Balawati Sharma noted that a direct question-and-answer session with the Prime Minister is still pending. She stated during Monday’s session, “Let the direct question-and-answer arrangement with the Prime Minister be implemented. We will have the opportunity to question the Prime Minister at the first session in the month of Jestha (mid-May to mid-June), and I wish to remind everyone of that.”

Rule 56 of the House Rules mandates that the Speaker allocate the first hour of any one meeting during the first week of each month for questions related to the Prime Minister or his area. This compulsory procedure stipulates that if the scheduled day is missed for any reason, the first hour of the next meeting must also be reserved. In a parliamentary democracy, the Prime Minister is expected to listen to the people’s concerns through parliament. The purpose of the question-and-answer session is to hold the Prime Minister accountable before parliament. However, such sessions are not included in the parliamentary calendar up to June 28. According to MP Sharma, the absence of these sessions contradicts Article 76(10) of the constitution, which states: “The Prime Minister and ministers shall be collectively accountable to the Federal Parliament, and ministers individually accountable to their ministries and parliament.”

According to Nepali Congress MP Arjun Narsingh KC, Prime Minister Shah’s absence from the policy debate breaks an established tradition. KC said, “In parliamentary democracies like Japan, the UK, Australia, and India, the Prime Minister personally presents the government’s annual policy and program in parliament, participates in discussions, and answers questions. Nepal had a similar custom.” But this time, the Prime Minister neither attended the debate nor responded. “Since 1960, neither in the 18-month parliament of 1960 nor after 1990 has such an absence occurred. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise,” KC declared on April 14, challenging the government and RASWAPA.

Opposition voices have intensified as the government seems to sideline parliamentary functions. Critics fear that a single-party government with a two-thirds majority is trying to weaken parliament. “Has parliament started being disregarded?” asked Labour Culture Party MP Arun Rai during Monday’s session. “Why didn’t the Prime Minister attend the policy debate? Why can ministers avoid attendance even in the mini-parliament? Have ministers abandoned accountability to parliament?” He and his party believe that by strictly following parliamentary procedure, government accountability can be enforced. “The issues we raise represent the people’s concerns, not personal matters. Ministers must be mandatorily present in both parliament and mini-parliament to listen to the people’s voice,” he said.

Most discussions in parliamentary committees relate to government affairs, including decisions of ministries, budget expenditures, corruption, policy implementation, and administrative weaknesses. Removing the mandatory presence of ministers risks undermining parliamentary oversight. Parliament risks becoming a mere bystander. In parliamentary democracy, the core objective is to keep rulers within established rules. Parliament fulfills this role, serving as a vital center of government oversight and strengthening democracy. Former Federal Parliament Secretariat Secretary-General Surya Kiran Gurung stated, “Government accountability to parliament is the foundation of parliamentary democracy. Only through the tradition of ministers’ attendance and direct responses can parliament be effective.” However, recent developments, such as the uncertainty over regular question sessions with the Prime Minister, his absence from policy debates, and the attempt to remove mandatory ministerial attendance, have raised concerns. “This undermines parliamentary practice and seeks to limit parliament’s scope,” Gurung said, “If MPs don’t hold the government accountable themselves, good parliamentary practice cannot exist.”

All committee members, including the Prime Minister, are listed so that members can meet with them if needed. However, current plans appear to shield ministers even from questioning. If parliament’s role is restricted to merely endorsing government decisions, parliamentary democracy will falter. The executive branch will become excessively powerful, the opposition weakened, and parliament’s role questioned, risking instability in society. Therefore, former Secretary-General Gurung suggests mandatory ministerial attendance in every committee discussion, not just bill discussions. “Every discussion pertains to some ministry or other. If ministers do not attend, parliamentary committees will be devalued,” he emphasized.

Gurung highlights two points MPs should understand: first, parliamentary committees are not solely RASWAPA’s committees; second, RASWAPA will not always have a two-thirds majority. If ministers are excused from committees based on questions raised, the committees will lose their purpose. He warns that this trend is becoming a threat. If RASWAPA conflates government and parliament, promoting only government praise in society, it will have long-term negative consequences. “RASWAPA seeks to overstep parliamentary jurisdiction, but it will not always hold a majority,” Gurung insisted, urging MPs to remain vigilant. “Parliament should not curtail its authority in defending the government,” he said. “Parliament must oversee government affairs; neglecting this will harm the parliament itself.”