KATHMANDU, Jan 8: The provision for the Constitutional Council is made in Article 284 of the Constitution. For the recommendation of appointments of the Chief Justice, heads, and officials of constitutional bodies, a system has been established with six members, namely the Prime Minister as the Chairperson, Chief Justice as a member, Speaker of the HoR as a member, and Deputy Speaker of the HoR as a member.

A minimum of four members is considered a quorum for a Constitutional Council meeting. The Chairperson of the Council presides over the meeting. The decision on each agenda item in the meeting is based on consensus. If consensus cannot be reached, no decision can be made on that matter.

If a decision cannot be reached on a particular matter, the Chairperson calls for another meeting to decide on that issue, and with the consent of such a meeting, a decision is made on that matter. However, if a decision cannot be reached even in such a meeting by consensus, the decision is taken by a majority of the members of the council. The records of the decision made by the council are prepared by the secretary and signed by the chairman and members.

However, in the amendment bill related to the Constitutional Council (Functions, Duties, Powers, and Procedures) Act of 2066 BS, it is stated that if 50 percent of the members are present, i.e., if three are present, the quorum is considered to be reached. In such a scenario, decisions will be made by a majority including the chairman and at least 50 percent of the members currently in office.

A majority of four implies three, meaning that a decision made by the consensus of three individuals will be considered as the decision made by the council. In the meeting of the State Affairs and Good Governance Committee of the House of Representatives, discussions were held on the bill to amend the Constitutional Council (Functions, Duties, Powers, and Procedures) Act of 2066 BS, which is currently under consideration. To make the amendment effective, Members of Parliament put forth their arguments.

The Constitutional Council has been in a state of flux lately as it is facing a situation where meetings cannot be convened or, even if convened, decisions cannot be made. Mainly, there is an arrangement to hold the meeting of the council according to the instructions of the chairman. There is a provision that a member can submit proposals with the chairperson's approval.

It seems that the prime minister dominates this council. Sushila Thing, who is also a Nepali Congress whip said in the State Affairs Committee meeting on Sunday that the chairman of the Constitutional Council (Prime Minister) had delayed the constitutional appointments for months by not calling the meeting in the past and said that the constitution itself should be amended and the powers of the Prime Minister should be curtailed. She said that by amending the constitution, the meeting can be held if the chairman and four members are present and that the meeting should be held every month.

CPN-UML MP Raghuji Panta said that the constitution should be amended to remove the Chief Justice as a member of the Constitutional Council. He said, "The person who recommends the appointment will make a decision when there is a case related to him, so there is no need for the Chief Justice."

He also suggested removing the Deputy Speaker from the members of the Constitutional Council. Initially, during the formation of the Constitutional Council, the Deputy Speaker was included for party representation, but he mentioned that it is no longer necessary.

Nepal Workers and Peasants Party MP Prem Suwal emphasized the need to amend the constitutional provisions regarding the structure and duties of the Constitutional Council. Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) MP Sobita Gautam proposed the formation of a separate expert group to create a roster of recommendations from the Constitutional Council. She suggested the creation of an independent expert group to formulate a roster of recommendations from the Constitutional Council. Other lawmakers have also demanded a mandatory provision in the law to ensure the presence of council members and their attendance in line with the country's top leadership, as well as to address the issue of their non-attendance when their interests do not align.

Minister of Communication and Information Technology, Rekha Sharma, has said that there is a need to establish regulations regarding the attendance of Constitutional Council members in meetings. She said clear arrangements should be made to track the presence of council members, and if a member is consistently absent from meetings, there should be mandatory legal provisions to address such situations.

 
• Constitutional_Council
 
• personal_interest