New rules tilt balance towards lower house in constitutional amendments
Summarized and contextualized by DistantNews.
At a glance
- Nepal's House of Representatives passed new rules of procedure, expanding the Speaker's authority in constitutional amendments despite fierce opposition and physical scuffles.
- A contentious new rule allows the Speaker to certify constitutional amendment bills based on the combined votes of both houses, bypassing the requirement for a two-thirds majority in each house separately.
- Constitutional experts argue this provision contradicts established norms and the spirit of the constitution, potentially undermining the role of the National Assembly in the amendment process.
Nepal's House of Representatives passed its new rules of procedure on May 31, 2026, despite significant opposition and scuffles between ruling and opposition lawmakers. Speaker DP Aryal, surrounded by parliamentary marshals, put the House of Representatives Rules, 2026, to a vote. These new rules grant the Speaker expanded authority in the constitutional amendment process and are declared a special federal law applicable to the House, its committees, and members, overriding prevailing laws.
One of the most controversial provisions, Rule 140(11), alters the constitutional amendment process. It states that if a constitution amendment bill passed by the House of Representatives receives at least a two-thirds majority of the total existing membership of both Houses combined, the Speaker shall certify the bill and forward it to the President. This deviates from the existing practice, which requires a two-thirds majority in each house of the Federal Parliament separately. For the 275-member House of Representatives, this means at least 184 votes, and for the 59-member National Assembly, at least 40 votes.
A constitution amendment bill must be passed by a two-thirds majority in separate sittings of both houses. A two-thirds majority in just one house is insufficient.
Constitutional expert and senior advocate Chandra Kanta Gyawali criticized the provision, stating it contradicts established constitutional norms. "A constitution amendment bill must be passed by a two-thirds majority in separate sittings of both houses. A two-thirds majority in just one house is insufficient," Gyawali explained. He argued that combining votes from both houses to claim a two-thirds majority, especially if the National Assembly has not approved it by the required threshold, violates constitutional principles. "Even in non-parliamentary systems of governance, there are two houses. Wherever there are two houses, bills are passed by a two-thirds majority in each house; this is a universal constitutional principle. It is also the core value and norm of the Constitution," he added.
The new rule allows the Speaker to determine if the combined votes from both houses meet the required two-thirds threshold of the Federal Parliament's total membership, which amounts to 223 out of 334 members. If this combined total is reached, the Speaker can certify the bill for presidential authentication, even if the National Assembly has not independently passed it with the necessary two-thirds majority. This mechanism was not present in the previous rules, raising concerns about the balance of power and the legislative integrity of constitutional amendments in Nepal.
Even in non-parliamentary systems of governance, there are two houses. Wherever there are two houses, bills are passed by a two-thirds majority in each house; this is a universal constitutional principle. It is also the core value and norm of the Constitution.
Originally published by Kathmandu Post. Summarized and contextualized by our editorial team with added local perspective. Read our editorial standards.