Ordinances preferred tool of government, no matter who leads it

The administration led by Prime Minister Balendra Shah has drawn criticism for its extensive use of ordinances, particularly after recommending the President prorogue a parliamentary session that had already been summoned. The Cabinet convened on April 21, recommending a joint session of parliament for April 30. However, just two days later, on April 23, another Cabinet meeting recommended the session be prorogued before it convened, a recommendation the President approved the same day.

Following the prorogation, the government began issuing ordinances, starting with those related to the Constitutional Council and the cooperatives sector. By May 4, a total of eight ordinances had been recommended to the President. This move has led to widespread criticism, with parties that previously governed through ordinances accusing the current government of attempting to bypass Parliament.

Constitutional experts contend that the core issue lies not with the constitutional provision for ordinances but with the increasing tendency to suspend or avoid parliamentary proceedings to enact them. They note that the Rastriya Swatantra Party, now leading the government, was once a vocal critic of this ordinance route. The constitution allows for ordinances when Parliament is not in session and immediate action is required, but their use has become a routine legislative shortcut.

Critics question the necessity of relying on ordinances when the government possesses a commanding majority in Parliament, suggesting it indicates executive convenience over genuine need. Supporters, however, argue that governments formed with a majority should be able to pass legislation through normal parliamentary channels. Legal experts highlight that the misuse of ordinance power is most vulnerable when amending laws governing institutions like the Constitutional Council or political parties.

“

Parliament meets