KATHMANDU, Feb 8: In the meeting of the House of Representatives, the parliamentary committee unanimously passed the bill related to legislation, but the bill was removed from the agenda after the minister read and explained the proposed amendments.
The agenda for Friday's session included plans to endorse the bill from the parliament. Before passing it, Law, Justice, and Human Rights Minister Ajay Kumar Chaudhary took to the rostrum to propose a discussion on the bill, along with the report from the Law, Justice, and Parliamentary Welfare Committee.
After explaining the issues raised in the legislative committee's report, the minister proposed making amendments to some provisions in the bill and presented the details of the proposed changes. The Speaker, the committee on procedures, and even the chairperson of the Law, Justice, and Human Rights Committee were reportedly unaware of the amendments the minister had proposed.
During the discussion, Sushila Thing, a member of the Law, Justice, and Human Rights Committee and the Nepali Congress (NC) Whip, also proposed an amendment to the same provision of the bill as the minister. Both the minister and Thing proposed identical amendments to section 21(1) of the bill.
The proposal states, "Before the Government of Nepal approves the ratified legislation, the relevant ministries or agencies must obtain translation approval from the Ministry of Law for such draft legislation. Without this approval, the Government of Nepal cannot create rules, formation orders, or guidelines under the prevailing laws that the Cabinet of Nepal is required to make."
NC Whip Sushila Thing urged other lawmakers to support the amendment and proposed replacing section 21(1) with sub-section 1 in the bill. She explained that this amendment aligns with the 8th amendment to the regulations issued by the Government of Nepal in 2064 BS, which aims to promote good governance, expedite public service delivery, and simplify the government decision-making process. She called on the House to pass the report with the proposed changes.
The Law, Justice, and Human Rights Committee's drafted bill retained the provision introduced by the government in section 21(1). It states, "The Government of Nepal can create rules, rules approved by the Government of Nepal, formation orders, rules made by development committees under formation orders, procedures, directives, standards, or issued orders approved by the Government of Nepal or relevant ministries, as long as they have obtained translation approval from the Ministry of Law. Similarly, rules or regulations of organized institutions that require approval from the Government of Nepal can be created."
According to the existing rule of the House of Representatives, once the committee passes a bill, it cannot be amended, but the full session of parliament has the final authority to either amend or reject the committee's recommendations. However, Bimala Subedi, chairperson of the Law, Justice, and Human Rights Committee, says the amendment process did not align with parliamentary procedures.
"During the committee discussions, the minister was present, and as a committee member, Sushila Thing was also there. With their agreement, the committee unanimously passed the bill, and the bill report was presented in the House. But I was shocked when I saw that the minister and one MP (Thing) suddenly read and explained the details of the amendments."
The committee chairperson said she was unaware of why the bill, which was passed unanimously, was amended without informing her. She also suggested that further discussions were necessary, which led to the removal of the bill from the agenda for passing.
Committee Chair Subedi said, "Amendments can be made, but since the minister and the MP suddenly read out the details of the amendments, it seemed a bit off. We are discussing and moving forward." She also complained that after the minister, who had come to propose a discussion on the bill report, read out the amendments, it was disrespectful to the parliament.
Legal expert Ramnarayan Bidari stated that the report passed by the committee could be amended when presented in the House. He said, "Once the committee report is presented, all MPs must accept the bill report while expressing their views. If the minister also accepts it, then the bill can proceed. However, if MPs reject and propose amendments, the minister can accept those amendments. The report with the accepted amendments becomes part of the house and is passed. According to his view, first, the minister should propose a discussion, then MPs should express their opinions, and if amendments are raised, the minister should either accept or reject the amendments during the response, following the parliamentary process."
The discussion on the legislative bill has concluded in Parliament. However, the law minister still needed to respond to the issues raised during the discussion. The minister was supposed to complete the response and prepare to pass the bill on Friday. However, without informing the Speaker and the staff, the minister proposed amendments, prompting some MPs to secretly request the Speaker to halt the bill's passage process, according to sources from the Parliament Secretariat.
Rule 123(2) of the Rules of the House of Representatives 2079 BS requires the minister to propose one of the following: either to discuss the bill along with its report or to return the bill to the concerned committee for reconsideration with specific directions on particular clauses. If amendments were necessary, the bill could have been sent back to the committee for further discussion.