KATHMANDU, June 18: What began as routine parliamentary exchanges has gradually evolved into a sharper institutional standoff, with the conduct of Speaker Dol Prasad Aryal emerging as a recurring point of friction between the ruling coalition and opposition parties.
Across recent sittings of the House of Representatives (HoR), Speaker Aryal has repeatedly drawn attention to and cautioned opposition lawmakers over what he has described as breaches of parliamentary decorum. On Monday, the tension resurfaced after opposition members questioned his conduct, prompting another warning from the Chair.
At the heart of the dispute lies a broader opposition allegation: that the Speaker is not maintaining strict neutrality in handling contentious political remarks made inside the House.
Opposition parties have in particular objected to the Speaker’s handling of a controversial statement made by Prime Minister Balendra Shah regarding the Nepal–India border. The opposition has demanded that the remark be expunged from the parliamentary record, arguing it was inappropriate and sensitive to Nepal’s territorial integrity.
During a recent House meeting, Chandra Mohan Yadav raised the issue formally, questioning why the statement had not been removed. He also accused Speaker Aryal of political partiality, suggesting lingering ties with his former party, the Rastriya Swatantra Party.
Net Neutrality in Nepal
His remarks escalated the exchange inside the chamber. “Before occupying this dignified chair, you were affiliated with a political party,” Yadav said, adding that the Speaker should uphold the dignity and neutrality of the House.
The intervention immediately triggered a procedural pushback from Ganesh Karki, who raised a point of order citing parliamentary rules that restrict criticism of the Speaker except through formal motions.
Referring to Rule 21(b) of the House Regulations, Karki argued that Yadav’s comments violated parliamentary procedure and demanded that they be removed from the official record. Speaker Aryal subsequently reminded members of the relevant provisions and urged restraint, reiterating the need to maintain parliamentary decorum.
This was not an isolated instance. Earlier, the Speaker had also cautioned Nishcal Rai after he called for a five-minute silence in the House without prior approval from the Chair.
The ongoing tension traces back to Prime Minister Shah’s May 31 remarks from the parliamentary rostrum, where he stated that “not only India, but Nepal has also encroached on Indian land in many places.” The comment triggered immediate uproar in Parliament and led to an opposition blockade lasting more than a week.
Opposition parties demanded that the statement be removed from the record, calling it diplomatically sensitive and politically irresponsible. While proceedings eventually resumed under a political understanding that allowed members to express their views, the core dispute remained unresolved.
On behalf of the Nepali Congress (NC) parliamentary party, Bhishma Raj Angdembe criticised the Speaker for not compelling the Prime Minister to clarify or retract the statement. His speech, which invoked a line from poet Bhupi Sherchan—“from the revolving chair…”—sparked visible protest from Rabi Lamichhane, who thumped his desk in objection.
Since then, the Prime Minister’s remarks have continued to echo in daily parliamentary business, with opposition lawmakers repeatedly pressing for their removal. The Speaker, however, has yet to rule in favour of expunging the statement, a stance opposition parties interpret as evidence of bias toward the RSP.
Parliamentary observers, however, caution against placing responsibility solely on the Speaker. They point to the role of chief whips and the Business Advisory Committee in managing procedural discipline and maintaining consensus.
Analysts also note that confrontational tactics by opposition parties—such as surrounding the Speaker’s chair or disrupting proceedings during the passage of regulations—have further hardened positions on both sides.
At a broader level, experts argue that while Speakers in Nepal’s parliamentary history have traditionally attempted to remain above party politics, the country’s electoral system and political arithmetic often make complete neutrality difficult to sustain.
In contrast, systems like the United Kingdom require Speakers to resign from party affiliation upon assuming office and contest future elections as independents, with major parties refraining from fielding candidates against them. In Nepal, however, Speakers typically return to party politics after their tenure.
For many political analysts, this structural difference—combined with increasingly adversarial parliamentary behaviour—means expectations of complete neutrality remain difficult to realise in the near term.
