Nepal opposition parties to challenge House regulations in Supreme Court

Nepal's major opposition parties, the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML, are gearing up to challenge the newly adopted House of Representatives Regulations 2026 by filing separate writ petitions at the Supreme Court. Both parties contend that specific provisions within the regulations are inconsistent with the constitution and prevailing laws.

The Nepali Congress, led by parliamentary party leader Bhishma Raj Angdembe, is finalizing its petition with senior advocates. The petition will be jointly filed by members of its National Assembly and House of Representatives parliamentary parties. Similarly, the CPN-UML is preparing its own petition, with chief whip Ain Mahar stating that senior advocate Tikaram Bhattarai is drafting the document.

“

Our effort was to file a joint petition with the other opposition parties. Even though the Congress is filing its own petition, the cases will eventually be heard together, so it makes little difference.

Although the parties initially sought to file a joint petition, they will now proceed separately. Mahar noted that the cases are expected to be heard together, minimizing the practical difference. The regulations were passed on May 31 through a majority vote, despite strong objections and protests from opposition lawmakers who disrupted proceedings.

“

The regulations were pushed through solely on the strength of a majority despite our objections. Several provisions directly contradict the constitution and prevailing laws. We are approaching the Supreme Court to have those clauses annulled.

Angdembe criticized the passage, stating, "The regulations were pushed through solely on the strength of a majority despite our objections." He asserted that several provisions directly contradict the constitution and laws, necessitating judicial intervention. The draft petition specifically challenges the preamble, Rule 140, and Rule 259, arguing they improperly expand parliamentary authority, grant regulations the status of federal law, and conflict with constitutional amendment procedures.

Both parties emphasize their constitutional duty to safeguard parliamentary authority and legislative processes. They argue that the disputed provisions infringe upon the constitutional jurisdiction and roles of parliamentarians, making Supreme Court intervention essential to resolve the constitutional dispute and uphold the constitution.

“

Protecting the authority, dignity and constitutionally prescribed legislative process of both houses of Parliament is the constitutional duty of lawmakers. However, the regulations passed by a majority directly affect the constitutional jurisdiction of both the House of Representatives and the National Assembly. As these provisions infringe on the constitutional role and authority of parliamentarians, intervention by the Supreme Court is necessary to safeguard the constitution and resolve this constitutional dispute.