Author: space4knews

Nepal’s constitution guarantees every citizen the right to live with dignity. However, numerous individuals taken into custody for investigation die mysteriously in detention cells, raising serious concerns about full state control and security mechanisms. The recent case of 23-year-old Shrikrishna Bik from Sunakoshi Rural Municipality–3 in Sindhuli is a prominent example.

During the Panchayat era, police custody was known as “kalakothari” (dark rooms). Many people brought in for routine questioning lost their lives there. Even during the decade-long conflict, detention cells were referred to by the same term, and this grim reality has remained unchanged to this day.

Similarly, most of those who mysteriously die in custody belong to Dalit and other marginalized communities, pointing to serious concerns of structural crimes by the state.

Recent incidents indicate that deaths in custody are not merely technical accidents but are consequences of deep social prejudices and systemic violence. Below are details of five major custodial death cases:

“Insecure Victims at the Boundary of Security”

1. Shrikrishna Bik (Sindhuli, Date: 7 Baishakh 2083):

23-year-old Shrikrishna Bik, from Sunakoshi Rural Municipality–3, Sindhuli, was a vehicle driver who had a love relationship with an upper-caste teenage girl. Despite marrying on 28 Chaitra 2082, the girl’s family filed a rape complaint citing her young age. Arrested at Satdobato, Lalitpur, he was handed over to Khurkot Police in Sindhuli. On 4 Baishakh, he was placed in custody at Khurkot; police declared his death by suicide on 7 Baishakh around 6 pm.

Suspicion surrounds this supposed ‘honor killing’ as he was found hanging on a three-foot measuring window with bodily injuries, and police delayed showing CCTV footage.

2. Bijayram Mahara (Rautahat, Date: 10 Bhadra 2077):

19-year-old Bijayram Mahara from Garuda, Rautahat, was arrested for investigation in a murder case. During custody, he was tortured so severely that both kidneys failed. While undergoing treatment in Birgunj, he died on 10 Bhadra 2077. Before death, via a video message from the treatment room, he revealed being tortured with pipes and boots by the police. Police tried to erase evidence but under pressure, some officers faced legal action.

3. Shambhu Sada Musahar (Dhanusha, Date: 28 Jestha 2077):

23-year-old Shambhu Sada Musahar was found dead in custody at the Sabaila Area Police Office, Dhanusha, on 28 Jestha 2077. Police said he hanged himself in the detention toilet, but the height of the hanging spot didn’t match his stature. This incident sparked large protests in the Madhesh region. Although the family alleged police torture leading to murder, the truth never emerged.

4. Rajkumar Chepang (Chitwan, Date: 7 Shrawan 2077):

24-year-old Rajkumar Chepang from Rapti Municipality, Chitwan, died due to brutal police torture. Arrested on 1 Shrawan, he died on 7 Shrawan during treatment. Activists reported severe torture inflicted upon him.

5. Paltu Ravidas (Dhanusha, Date: 15 Shrawan 2078):

40-year-old Paltu Ravidas from Lakshminiya Rural Municipality–2, Dhanusha, highlights the state’s lack of sensitivity. Released on bail of Rs. 200,000 on 11 Shrawan 2078 for a murder charge, he was held in custody due to delays in raising bail money. On the morning of 15 Shrawan, he was found hanging in the police station’s toilet. The family claimed murder and refused to accept the body. Following suspension of a police constable, an investigation team was formed; however, reports have not been made public and justice remains elusive. This case exemplifies how caste arrogance and police violence kill innocent people in custody.

Statistics of Deaths in Custody: 72% from Marginalized Groups

Data from Advocacy Forum collected between 2018 and 2022 shows that 72% of 39 custody deaths were Dalits, Janajatis, Madhesis, and other historically marginalized communities.

Table 1: Ethnic Breakdown of Deaths in Custody (2018–2022)

The table clearly indicates the majority of victims belong to marginalized communities.

Table 2: Location and Nature of Deaths

Reports show that out of 39 deaths, 16 were caused directly by police. Many incidents involve hanging in toilets, a factor closely linked to caste and social disparities.

Advocacy Forum’s 2018 report “Rise of Torture” and others demonstrate that deaths and torture in custody are directed along ethnic and class lines.

Investigation Committee Outcomes: Protection for the Culprits

The state rarely forms investigation committees after custodial deaths. When formed, these committees frequently serve only to shield the guilty from legal accountability.

According to Advocacy Forum’s 2022 report “Custodial Deaths in Nepal,” investigation committees habitually exonerate the perpetrators, confirming the impunity prevalent in the justice system.

Accused Also the Investigator: According to principles of fair justice, one cannot investigate their own case. Yet, in Nepal, police departments themselves investigate incidents that occurred under their own supervision.

In Bijayram Mahara’s case, police refused to collect evidence and attempted to protect colleagues by erasing evidence and fabricating false ones.

Low-Level Staff Blamed, Higher-Ups Protected: Custodial deaths usually happen under orders or tacit consent from senior officials. However, only lower-ranking staff are suspended or penalized, serving as scapegoats, while senior officials face no consequences.

Example 1 (Paltu Ravidas): After his death, 30-year-old police constable Jayprakash Yadav was suspended for six months, yet no action was taken against commanders or station chiefs.

Example 2 (Bijayram Mahara): Despite complaints filed against SP Raviraj Khadka, DSP Gyankumar Mahto, Inspector Nabin Kumar Singh, and Sub-Inspector Birendra Yadav, only some lower and mid-level officials were suspended or transferred in what appeared to be damage control.

Investigation Reports Remain Confidential: Non-disclosure of committee findings fosters impunity, as reports remain shelved in the Home Ministry.

Despite recommendations from the National Human Rights Commission, the Dalit Death Investigation Committee formed by the Madhesh government remained only on paper, citing COVID-19 as a reason.

Obstacles in Filing Cases: Filing complaints against police is difficult. In Shambhu Sada Musahar’s case, a complaint against Inspector Chandrabhushan Yadav was rejected, and later the Attorney General’s Office decided not to proceed, confirming police impunity.

Activists note police reluctance to register complaints against themselves and exclusion of senior officials from investigations institutionalizes impunity, increasing abuse by higher-ups and fear among lower rank officers.

Failure by the National Dalit Commission and Human Rights Commission to enforce recommendations perpetuates custodial deaths among Dalits.

“Apologies from the Podium, Handcuffs in Custody”

How personal freedoms like love and marriage transform into structural violence due to caste arrogance.

On 13 Chaitra 2078, the Cabinet acknowledged injustices against Dalit and marginalized communities and decided on corrective measures. However, before the Prime Minister’s government could implement programs, Shrikrishna Bik died mysteriously, mocking governmental commitments.

One month prior to his death, Rajpa had repeatedly apologized to Dalits and promised to end caste-based injustice. Yet, just days later, Shrikrishna’s love marriage collapsed, and he died in custody. None of the apologizing parties have formally responded to this tragedy.

No major political party has officially addressed the issue, and caste violence remains largely confined to “Dalit issues.” Shrikrishna’s death and investigation reports reveal the state’s structural mindset. Unless these reports are disclosed and culprits punished, calls for justice will remain mere promises deceiving the Dalit community.

Inter-Caste Love: Some Die, Others Are Imprisoned

The suffering of Dalits in Nepalese society is profound and inhumane. The cases of Jyoti Paswan from Saptari and a 19-year-old in Sarlahi show that although laws outlaw caste discrimination, medieval social attitudes persist.

Jyoti Paswan married Krishna Mishra in a love marriage in Falgun 2077, but family pressure due to caste differences caused Krishna to sever ties. Unable to bear the rejection, she committed suicide in Shrawan 2078.

In Sarlahi, a Dalit girl was sexually exploited under the guise of marriage and then kept imprisoned like livestock for 23 days because she was considered “untouchable.” These cases illustrate how love and marriage issues become structural massacres.

Nepal’s caste structures cruelly punish Dalit youth: Dalit men are killed in custody for loving non-Dalit women, while Dalit women face social scorn and familial rejection forcing them to end their own lives.

The Shrikrishna Case: A Test of State Justice Commitment

The state has policies to encourage inter-caste marriage, but silent tolerance of murders or fatal conditions for Dalit partners reveals the real problem.

Previous investigation committees into the deaths of Bijayram Mahara and Shambhu Sada limited themselves to shielding culprits. In Shrikrishna Bik’s case, the current urgency must not merely pacify public outrage but must ensure justice. Failure to do so will severely damage not only democracy and human rights but also the moral standing of a government that has apologized to Dalits.

As long as Dalit youth face death or imprisonment for love and marriage, the state’s claims of inclusivity and citizen rights will remain hollow slogans. Shrikrishna’s death cannot be closed as suicide; it must become a test case to punish offenders. Otherwise, detention centers will become slaughterhouses for marginalized communities, and laws will mirror the ugly face of impunity.

The caste prejudice surrounding love in Nepalese society is so harsh that Dalit men die in custody for loving, while Dalit women end their lives. Although policies promote inter-caste marriage, silence over Dalit deaths is the greatest manifestation of structural crime.

April 28, Kathmandu – The government holds a clear two-thirds majority. There is little possibility of opposition when undertaking people-centric initiatives. This government has the opportunity to enact laws without succumbing to any group’s pressure or influence.

Amid this opportunity, the government has postponed the parliamentary session dates to issue ordinances. Drafts of ordinances, passed through Cabinet decisions not made public, have reportedly reached the President’s office.

Instead of submitting new bills to the House of Representatives, the government has recommended two ordinances concerning cooperatives and the Constitutional Council to the President.

Senior Advocate Dr. Surendra Bhandari has commented that unlike past governments, the current administration is not compelled to issue ordinances. He states that avoiding debate and pushing forward through ordinances signals the onset of an authoritarian style.

“Earlier governments faced certain compulsions forcing them to violate the constitution, but this government faces no blockage from Parliament to pass laws,” Bhandari states. “Bringing ordinances when laws should be passed by Parliament undermines the legislative authority.”

In parliamentary democracies, the executive is authorized to issue ordinances only when there is an urgent necessity or when Parliament is not in session.

Nepal’s interim constitutions of 1990 and 2007 and the current 2015 Constitution contain provisions for such ordinances. However, many administrations have misused this provision.

In 2017, the Communist Party of Nepal (CPN) with a two-thirds majority, issued multiple ordinances related to the Constitutional Council. Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli led the council and appointed 52 constitutional officials through these ordinances.

After the Supreme Court’s order removed Oli from his post, the government under Sher Bahadur Deuba introduced political party-related ordinances, which facilitated the split of UML and formation of the CPN (Unified Socialist).

Some ordinances amended existing laws contrary to established acts. Provisions of criminal law were altered without debate, granting unusual privileges to some and imposing harsher detention on others.

Advocate Om Prakash Aryal challenged such ordinance-based amendments as unconstitutional in the Supreme Court, but his petition was dismissed in mid-July.

Aryal argued, “Laws cannot be amended by ordinance; it disrespects Parliament and interferes with the legislature’s authority.”

He noted that even the interim government had submitted ordinances related to the Constitutional Council to the President’s office, but the then President Ram Chandra Paudel left them pending without approval.

What Does the Constitution Say?

Article 114 of Nepal’s Constitution authorizes the President, upon the Council of Ministers’ recommendation, to issue ordinances when Parliament is not in session and in urgent circumstances. Such ordinances must be ratified by Parliament within 60 days of its next session or else they automatically lapse.

Yet in recent years, ruling parties have routinely misused ordinances for their own advantage. The previous governments led by Oli, Deuba, and Prachanda used ordinances arbitrarily, and now there are indications the current Balendra government may follow suit.

Governments have habitually relied on ordinances for self-serving purposes. For instance, in 2022, the Deuba administration issued an ordinance on Nepal Police that placed police structures of three districts of Kathmandu Valley under federal control, attempting to resolve federalism and power-sharing issues via ordinance.

Despite continuous litigation on cases like the 52 constitutional officials’ appointments and the political party ordinance amid UML’s division, the Supreme Court has generally refrained from delivering clear, conclusive interpretations regarding ordinances.

Since ordinances have a set limited duration, the courts rarely hear disputes once an ordinance becomes invalidated and the Supreme Court often states there is no need to interpret an ordinance that no longer exists. This practice grants ongoing opportunities for the rulers to exploit ordinances.

The Supreme Court’s Silence

While the Supreme Court initially questioned the legitimacy of ordinances, its final interpretation appears to have shifted. When the Oli government introduced an ordinance amending citizenship law, the Supreme Court issued a temporary order.

At that time, the Court referred to such practices as “colorful legislation” and ruled that ordinances lack constitutional validity.

It stated, “If this practice becomes accepted as normal, it would interfere with legislative authority and could adversely affect the constitutional principle of separation of powers.”

Constitutional and governmental practice require that ordinances meet basic criteria, such as being issued only when Parliament is not in session. Nonetheless, governments have repeatedly delayed parliamentary sessions while issuing ordinances.

Senior Advocate Bhandari views this authoritarian tendency of the government as disrespectful to the rule of law and the legislature.

Another critical condition for issuing ordinances is the ‘urgency’ of the matter. Article 114 of the Constitution indicates ordinances are justified only when a task cannot be accomplished otherwise.

Although the Supreme Court initially gave clear directions regarding the citizenship ordinance, it remained silent in its final ruling where a bench tacitly accepted that the ordinance’s urgent necessity had ended.

The case concerning the 52 constitutional officials follows a similar pattern. Repeated issuance of the same ordinance has prevented the Supreme Court from providing an interpretation on the ordinance’s broader impact on the country’s governance.

In late July, the Supreme Court had an opportunity to assess the ordinance’s justification, but judges in the Constitutional Bench appeared reluctant.

Judges Dr. Manojkumar Sharma and Dr. Kumar Chudal explained at length the scope of the President’s power to issue ordinances but refrained from discussing conditions or limits.

They relied on precedents that the constitutionality of invalidated laws could not be tested, concluding that since ordinances issued by the Oli government had lapsed, they could not be adjudicated.

It is unclear from the ruling whether Chief Justice Prakash Man Singh Raut and Judge Dr. Nahakul Subedi agreed with this position. Senior Judge Sapana Pradhan Malla dissented by remaining silent. The full text of that nearly ten-month-old decision has yet to be published.

Senior Advocate Bhandari remarks that the country’s judiciary is overly traditional and inactive in constitutional dispute interpretation.

“In precedent cases related to ordinances and significant issues like interim government formation, the Supreme Court has not shown prompt, necessary initiative,” Bhandari says. “The Court is missing opportunities to interpret constitutional conflicts and thereby enliven the Constitution.”

May 29, Kathmandu – On Baishakh 12, the squatter settlements along the riversides in Kathmandu were demolished, and armed military personnel were also visible around the area. While military officers have described this presence as mere coincidence, the issue has generated widespread questions.

Recently, it has come to light that the Nepal Army and Nepal Police have been requesting detailed information about informal and squatter settlements from various local municipalities, sparking debate about the reasonableness of such actions.

Some critics have termed this an abuse of authority, while others argue that collecting such data is necessary.

The Vajradal Battalion based at Imam Nagar Barracks in Banke district has sent letters to eight municipalities in Bardiya and Banke requesting details of the squatter settlements.

According to the letter sent by soldier Cholendra Karki, municipalities are asked to provide information such as the location of squatter settlements, date when residents began living there, number of households, and the contact details of settlement representatives.

The letter also mentions a plan under the Government’s 100-Point Agenda for State Reform to prepare data on landless squatters and informal settlers and to progressively provide land to genuine squatters.

Security personnel were deployed during the removal of squatter settlements along the riverbanks and public lands in the Kathmandu Valley on Baishakh 12 and 13, which has also led to requests for similar information from squatter communities in Banke and Bardiya districts.

Additionally, a Nepali Army major contacted Rapti Rural Municipality Chairperson Prakash Bista in Dang’s Deukhuri region over the phone seeking details about squatters.

The Masuriya police post of Nepal Police has also sent a letter to Rapti Rural Municipality requesting information on squatter residents.

The Pashupati Prasad Battalion based in Piple Tar, Udayapur, wrote to the Land Issues Resolution Commission in Udayapur on Baishakh 14 requesting data on squatter settlements.

Nepali Army spokesperson and assistant Rathi, Rajaram Basnet, stated that the requests were made in line with the agenda to update records in the District Security Committee meetings. “The District Security Committee raised record updates as an agenda item, and accordingly, information requests have been made,” Basnet said.

Nepal Police spokesperson DIG Avin Narayan Kafle explained that specific information is required for security management and the proper administration of squatter communities, which is why units have been deployed.

“While no directive has come from the central government ordering the collection of squatter data, security concerns might have prompted data gathering to understand who resides in which areas,” Kafle stated. “Effective police deployment and adherence to state directives necessitate collecting such information on squatter communities.”

Local Administration Unaware, How Are Elected Representatives Responding?

District Chief Officer of Bardiya, Gogan Bahadur Hamal, claimed he was unaware that the army had requested details about squatters. However, he confirmed that during the District Chief Officers’ meeting on Baishakh 4, a decision was taken to collect information on encroachments on government and public land.

Similarly, Banke’s District Chief Officer, Dil Kumar Tamang, stated he did not understand the reason behind the army’s demands from municipalities. He suspects the barracks are gathering this data following directives from higher authorities.

Emphasizing that removing encroachments is a priority, he added, “In a discussion with public representatives about removing encroachment in Ward No. 11 of Kohalpur Municipality, where a cricket ground is being developed, I committed to ensuring security arrangements. Beyond that, I am not aware of the army’s actions.”

Kohalpur Municipality Mayor Purna Prasad Acharya confirmed that the army asked for information on landless and squatter residents and the municipality is preparing to provide the data.

According to Mayor Acharya, encroachment has occurred over 36 bighas of land around the cricket ground in Kohalpur-11, where there were 751 households a year ago.

In Ward No. 4 of Kohalpur Municipality, out of 6 bighas of land along the East-West Highway, 4 bighas have been subdivided and allocated to 41 individuals. However, these details are not recorded in the land reform or land revenue offices, and currently, about 15 people reside there.

During former Prime Minister Prachanda’s tenure, 1,400 ghaderis (land parcels) were created and distributed in Loknagar, Kohalpur-11. Although the sale of these parcels was not permitted, some were allegedly sold secretly, a matter the municipality has decided needs investigation.

“We will provide all of this information to the army soon,” Mayor Acharya assured.

Chief Administrative Officer Krishna Prasad Jaisi of Gulariya Municipality, Bardiya, confirmed that they have submitted the requested details to the army but declined to provide further information.

Prakash Bista, Chairperson of Rapti Rural Municipality in Dang, criticized the fact that the police post sought data directly from the municipality, emphasizing that local government, not police, should be the one to request such information.

“While it is appropriate for the state to identify and manage genuine squatter residents, it is improper for the police post to demand details from the municipality,” he said.

“There is confusion where those in power exploit the identity of squatters. Public property must be protected, but prioritizing the management of genuine squatters is essential,” Bista added.

‘Abuse of Authority’

The Government of Nepal established the Land Issues Resolution Commission on October 30, 2024 (2081 Ashoj 14) under the Land Related Act, 2021, to provide land to landless Dalits and landless squatters and to manage informal settlers. As per the Commission’s data until Baishakh 14, there are 98,502 landless Dalits, 180,293 landless squatters, and 930,790 informal settlers across the country.

Hari Prasad Rijal, Chairperson of the Land Issues Resolution Commission, criticized the army and police for directly requesting information from municipalities, calling it illegal and an abuse of jurisdiction.

“If the army and police need such information, they must request it through the Ministry of Defence or Ministry of Home Affairs to the Ministry of Land Reform. If the ministry requests, we will provide it,” Chairperson Rijal stated. “But the way the army and police are directly demanding data from municipalities is an overreach of authority.”

Senior Advocate Raju Prasad Chapagain also expressed that the army and police should not be involved in collecting squatter details from municipalities. “This is not a security matter, and army involvement is unnecessary. Everyone should reside within their own jurisdictions,” he commented.

He further warned that unnecessary interference by security forces in matters legally managed by local bodies could undermine institutional legitimacy and public trust. “Such actions could diminish our institutions’ credibility and erode people’s confidence.”

April 28, Kathmandu — On August 17, 2021 (1 Bhadra 2078 BS), the then Sher Bahadur Deuba-led government introduced an ordinance allowing a party split with the support of 20 percent of lawmakers or central committee members. At that time, Ravi Lamichhane publicly opposed it on social media.

Lamichhane had criticized, “Those who opposed Oli’s ordinance yesterday are now bringing one together — a shameful and undemocratic step. Bypassing Parliament and allowing party splits with 20 percent is damaging to democracy’s reputation. Ugh… the same motives, but different faces entering and exiting Singha Durbar alternately.”

Back then, Lamichhane was a media figure. About a year later, he entered politics by forming the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) to reform such systemic problems.

Later, on December 10, 2022 (Mangsir 25, 2079 BS), the government issued the first amendment ordinance to the Muluki Criminal Procedure Code, which resulted in granting amnesty to Resham Chaudhary in a criminal case.

Responding to that, Lamichhane posted, “How long will the new Parliament take to convene? One week? Two? Three? Was there an emergency that it couldn’t wait a week or two? This ordinance undermines the spirit of the new mandate. It attempts to curb the new Parliament’s authority. This is extreme political shamelessness. It must be revoked immediately.”

Lamichhane’s party had won 21 seats in the 2022 election and expanded to 182 seats by 2026, currently running nearly a two-thirds majority government.

On Monday, the government led by Balendra Shah decided to issue two ordinances, which are reportedly strongly supported by the Rastriya Swatantra Party presence in Parliament. Shah has not publicly commented on this, but sources say he supports the move.

Following Monday’s Cabinet meeting, government spokesperson Sasmit Pokharel announced only three official decisions: allowing private competition in the Security Printing Press, appointing Narayan Datt Paudel as the Armed Police IGP, and approving customs regulations.

However, the Cabinet also decided to issue two ordinances, which were only made public after the Cabinet submitted recommendations to the President’s Office on Tuesday.

The two ordinances recommended concern the Constitutional Council and cooperative affairs. Though the President is currently reviewing them, their specific details have not been disclosed.

Constitutional scholar Tikaram Bhattarai emphasized that courts have repeatedly warned against issuing ordinances on long-term significant issues, but the government appears to ignore this caution.

Without Parliament in session, it is unclear that any urgent matter requires ordinances. The President bears the responsibility to implement ministry recommendations, so the ordinances might be promulgated within a few days.

Issuing two ordinances without any legislation passed by a strong government formed after elections sends a negative message.

Constitutional expert Dr. Bipin Adhikari said, “Bringing ordinances this close to a parliamentary session is inappropriate. A government with such a strong mandate shouldn’t revert to old methods.”

Use of ordinances is not considered good parliamentary practice. If a government with nearly two-thirds majority uses ordinances bypassing Parliament, the concern lies not in procedure but in intent and commitment to democracy. The main opposition Nepali Congress has termed this move a dangerous sign for democracy.

While Nepal’s Constitution does not fully prohibit the issuance of ordinances, their use is strictly an exception. Dr. Bhattarai stated, “Halting regular sessions to issue ordinances is a misuse of constitutional provisions and an abuse of the people’s mandate.”

Ordinarily, ordinances serve to maintain governance only when Parliament is not functioning and no legal alternatives are available. Using ordinances for long-term policies undermines parliamentary supremacy and institutional balance.

The government could have convened Parliament and passed legislation through the fast-track process, but instead opted for ordinances. Dr. Adhikari remarked, “The fast-track parliamentary route would have been better than ordinances.”

Even though Parliament was scheduled to convene from March 30 (Chaitra 17), the session called by the President was withdrawn by the government, marking the first such incident in Nepal’s parliamentary history. Instead, the government chose to govern through ordinances, bypassing parliamentary procedures.

Dr. Bipin Adhikari added, “It is better to take the parliamentary route to enact laws from scratch rather than rely on ordinances.”

Governing by ordinances is not new in Nepal. From 2015 to 2022 under the consolidated constitutional framework, 49 ordinances have been issued.

Sensitive topics like the budget have repeatedly been enacted through ordinances despite having a 74-year tradition of parliamentary approval. Eleven budget ordinances have been passed, including on taxation and revenue collection without parliamentary debate, which signals a democratic deficit.

These trends show that political pressure and party compromises have sustained ordinance governance practices, and the current government is no exception.

Unlike before, the current government is strong with a majority in Parliament and the legislative capacity to enact laws properly. Yet, its choice of ordinances reflects a desire for power rather than actual legal necessity.

Although the government has the authority to issue ordinances, this should not distort constitutional integrity or deceive the spirit of the law.

Ordinances are intended strictly as temporary laws when Parliament is not in session; using them for long-term policymaking is inappropriate and courts have warned about this practice.

Dr. Bhattarai noted that courts have cautioned against ordinances on long-term significant issues, but the government has not heeded these warnings.

Should ordinances come with ill intent, courts may intervene, and the President has a review role in such cases.

Earlier ordinances in 2020 related to political parties and the Constitutional Council sparked controversies due to their contentious provisions and ultimately failed to pass Parliament.

The 20 percent provision for party splits and Constitutional Council appointments by three-member majority were criticized. Following the annulment of those ordinances, the older laws needed reinstatement.

Dr. Adhikari emphasized again, “It is better to legislate through Parliament than issues ordinances for laws that do not currently exist.”

Past ordinances raised questions on power balance and institutional autonomy. While they are legal documents, they have also served as political tools.

The current government is repeating past mistakes, which undermines its claim to political reform. A government with two-thirds majority bypassing Parliament shows distrust of the public mandate. Parliament is the representative institution of that mandate.

The government has the strength and capacity to legislate effectively through Parliament.

Separation of powers is a cornerstone of democracy; balance among the executive, legislature, and judiciary is crucial. Relying on ordinances disrupts this balance and increases institutional conflicts.

In 2022, the National Assembly formed a study committee that recommended ordinances be used only under urgent circumstances, approved immediately once the session starts, avoided on long-term policy, and prevented repeated use.

Democracy is strengthened not only by constitution and laws but also by practice. Undermining democratic values through abuse of constitutional provisions harms democracy in the long run.

Currently, issuing ordinances is not a literal constitutional violation, but whether the spirit of the Constitution is upheld remains questionable. Using ordinances to bypass Parliament might be easier for the government but is not the best approach for democracy.

A strong government should have exercised restraint and constitutional norms instead of taking paths typical of coalition governments in fragile parliaments, which would have been a commendable example.