KATHMANDU, June 4: Nepal's House of Representatives has passed its new Rules of Procedure, 2083, aimed at making Parliament more accountable, calendar-based, and technology-friendly. While the rulebook introduces measures to improve discipline and efficiency, it has also triggered criticism for provisions that critics say protect lawmakers facing corruption and criminal charges.
The rules were passed by majority vote amid protests from opposition lawmakers. One notable provision requires MPs who damage parliamentary property during protests or unruly conduct to personally compensate for the losses. Previously, disciplinary measures were largely limited to suspension or expulsion from meetings. Analysts say the change could discourage the culture of vandalism seen in past parliamentary sessions. Speaker-led investigations into recent incidents of chair breaking will also proceed under the new rules.
Another major reform concerns impeachment proceedings. The House must now complete action on an impeachment motion within five months. If the House term is shorter than five months, the Speaker can set an expedited process after consulting the Business Advisory Committee.
Most significantly, impeachment motions will no longer lapse when a parliamentary term ends. Unresolved motions will be carried forward as official records to the next House, which must take them up within five months of its formation and reach a decision within the following five months.
End of Budget Session: Will the ‘mini parliaments’ be active?
This provision is expected to revive the stalled impeachment case against former Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana. The motion, registered in February 2022, had advanced through the impeachment recommendation committee but became inactive after Parliament's term expired. The new rule clarifies that impeachment records survive the dissolution of a House, creating a legal pathway for the case to be revisited.
The most controversial provision is Rule 259, which deals with parliamentary privilege. Legal experts argue that it places lawmakers above ordinary citizens by declaring that, regardless of other laws, the parliamentary rules will operate as a special law for matters concerning the House, its committees, and its members.
Critics say this provision effectively shields lawmakers from suspension even if they face serious charges such as corruption or money laundering. Opposition parties have labeled it a "rulebook to protect the corrupt," arguing that MPs have created a legal safeguard for themselves.
Under the new rules, an MP's position will be suspended only if a court orders pretrial detention in a criminal case carrying a potential sentence of three years or more, or after a final conviction. Lawmakers facing investigation, prosecution, or trial while remaining out of custody will continue to retain their parliamentary status and privileges.
The rulebook also seeks to strengthen government accountability. Ministers must now respond in Parliament within seven days to issues raised by lawmakers during special or zero-hour sessions. Parliamentary observers say this ends the long-standing practice of ministers ignoring concerns raised by MPs and strengthens executive accountability.
Conflict of interest provisions have also been tightened. Individuals with direct business interests will face greater restrictions on serving in related parliamentary committees. For example, bank directors will be barred from the Finance Committee, while private school operators will be restricted from serving on the Education Committee. Supporters say the measure could help reduce policy manipulation and lobbying within Parliament.
The opposition has also objected to provisions related to constitutional amendments. Parties including the Nepali Congress argue that the new procedure weakens the role of the National Assembly and contradicts the spirit of Nepal's bicameral legislature.
Under the disputed provision, if a constitutional amendment secures a two-thirds majority in the House of Representatives, votes from both chambers can be combined to determine whether the overall two-thirds threshold has been met. Critics argue that this situation conflicts with the Constitution, which requires constitutional amendments to be approved separately by a two-thirds majority in both houses.
The new rulebook contains several modernizing features, including digital parliamentary systems, mandatory legislative calendars, online public feedback mechanisms, and stronger ministerial accountability. Yet Rule 259 has overshadowed many of these reforms. Critics warn that allowing lawmakers to retain office despite facing serious corruption or criminal charges risks undermining public trust and reinforcing perceptions that elected officials see themselves as above the law.
