KATHMANDU, Aug. 8: A pair of black sunglasses has turned into an unlikely political symbol in Nepal’s parliament, prompting lawmakers to move toward restricting their use during House proceedings.
The debate over lawmakers’ appearance and conduct intensified after the Business Advisory Committee agreed that Members of Parliament (MPs) would not be allowed to wear dark sunglasses during parliamentary meetings.
The move comes amid growing criticism over Prime Minister Balendra Shah’s frequent use of black sunglasses, with opponents arguing that such styles do not reflect the seriousness and accountability expected inside the legislature.
Following Wednesday’s meeting of the Business Advisory Committee, chief whips of all political parties were asked to instruct their lawmakers to maintain parliamentary decorum. Besides dark sunglasses, lawmakers were also discouraged from wearing unusually dyed hair or placing coats over their shoulders while attending House sessions.
Experts say such restrictions are appropriate, arguing that parliament is a forum for debate, accountability and public representation.
They argue that eye contact is an important part of human communication and that hiding one’s eyes behind sunglasses inside the meeting hall can create a perception of disengagement or a lack of seriousness among lawmakers.
However, experts also point out that sunglasses themselves are not inappropriate. They are common outdoors, while driving or in places exposed to sunlight. The controversy arises when they are used inside closed spaces such as parliament, where they are often viewed as a fashion statement rather than a practical necessity.
Busting common myths about sunglasses
As elected representatives of the people, lawmakers are expected to maintain a public image of accessibility and accountability. Analysts say dark glasses, often associated with celebrities, powerful figures or a “hero” image, can unintentionally create a sense of distance between representatives and ordinary citizens.
Democratic parliaments around the world, including those in the United Kingdom, India and the United States, have long maintained traditions of formal attire and professional conduct, with certain informal styles and accessories generally discouraged.
A political analyst said the issue has attracted greater attention because the style has repeatedly been associated with leaders of the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP). “When such behaviour is repeatedly linked with one group, it begins to be viewed not merely as a personal preference but as a reflection of the party’s political style, attitude or approach to accountability,” the analyst said.
According to the analyst, the issue is not the sunglasses themselves but how they are interpreted as a political symbol and whether they fit the image of a serious, transparent and accountable parliament.
The controversy comes as Speaker Dol Prasad Aryal has taken initiatives to improve discipline inside the House following repeated concerns over lawmakers’ behaviour and presentation. The Speaker has directed strict implementation of Rules 20, 21 and 22 of the House of Representatives Regulation 2026.
A member of the Business Advisory Committee said discussions were held on lawmakers’ clothing, appearances and conduct inside the chamber. Issues such as wearing jeans, slippers, coloured hair, placing coats over shoulders and sitting casually on sofa edges were raised during the meeting.
The Speaker proposed stopping the use of dark sunglasses during House sessions, and most chief whips supported the proposal. However, no written decision has been issued yet.
RSP Chief Whip Kabindra Burlakoti had suggested that the Speaker introduce a formal dress code through a ruling to regulate lawmakers’ appearances. Based on the suggestion, Speaker Aryal proposed restrictions on sunglasses, which received support from most party representatives.
The committee also instructed lawmakers not to engage in activities such as share trading through mobile phones during parliamentary proceedings, aiming to ensure seriousness and respect for parliamentary time.
The controversy surrounding sunglasses is not new. Several RSP leaders, including Prime Minister Shah, Home Minister Sudan Gurung, Infrastructure Minister Sunil Lamsal and lawmaker Khagendra Sunar, have frequently appeared wearing dark glasses, making the issue a recurring topic of discussion. Opposition lawmakers have also gradually started using sunglasses.
Nepali Congress (NC) Chief Whip Basana Thapa argued that any restriction should apply equally to everyone, including the prime minister and ministers. Referring to Shah and other ministers, she said the rule should not apply only to lawmakers.
Earlier, Thapa had criticised Prime Minister Shah in parliament, questioning why he was avoiding difficult questions facing his government and suggesting that “the time had come for the prime minister to remove his black glasses.”
Similarly, during an event marking the 44th death anniversary of BP Koirala on July 23, NC President Gagan Thapa took a jibe at the prime minister, saying Shah could wear black glasses and black clothes but could not engage in “black deeds.”
Other opposition leaders have also raised the issue in parliament. NC lawmaker Khadak Bahadur Budha accused those in power of trying to control state institutions while “wearing black glasses,” while Rastriya Prajatantra Party Parliamentary Leader Gyanendra Shahi criticised the prime minister’s absence from parliamentary discussions while wearing sunglasses at Singha Durbar.
The debate shows that the sunglasses issue has moved beyond a matter of personal style and become linked with broader political tensions between the government and opposition.
Speaker Aryal has clarified that rules must apply equally to everyone and said lawmakers should avoid wearing dark sunglasses except in cases of health problems. He has also made wearing the parliamentary logo mandatory.
The House of Representatives Regulation 2026 includes provisions requiring lawmakers to maintain dignity during proceedings. MPs are prohibited from turning their backs toward the Speaker, walking across the chamber while the Speaker is speaking, using phones during meetings, taking photographs or recording audio/video, and using abusive, insulting or discriminatory language.
