KATHMANDU, Aug 17: Under the House of Representatives Regulations, 2083 BS, bells are rung at various stages and in various situations in Parliament. A warning bell is rung five minutes before the start of the daily sitting to alert lawmakers to enter the meeting hall and take their seats. If a question is raised about whether the quorum has been met while the House is in session and a decision is to be taken, a three-minute warning bell is rung to call lawmakers outside the chamber into the hall. Similarly, when a proposal or bill is put to a vote, a five-minute bell is rung to summon lawmakers from their offices or other places outside the chamber.
Last Tuesday, while the parliamentary secretariat repeatedly rang the bell because the quorum had not been met, the party that won nearly a two-thirds majority in Parliament under the bell election symbol itself failed to heed it. As a result, the sitting had to be adjourned, and the government’s Mining and Mineral Resources Bill, 2083 BS, could not be endorsed.
Critics have questioned why RSP lawmakers failed to respond to the three-minute warning bell rung by the Speaker. Experts have also expressed concern that if the ruling party continues to ignore parliamentary procedures in this manner, the House could be prevented from conducting important legislative business in the days ahead.
The sitting, which had only one item on its agenda—the proposal to consider the Mining and Mineral Resources Bill, 2083 BS—lasted more than seven hours. When the proposal was finally put to a decision, only 61 lawmakers were present, while 69 were required to meet the quorum. Although 228 lawmakers had marked their attendance at the beginning of the sitting, 167 left after signing in, forcing the House to adjourn.
The RSP, which had previously made the quorum issue a political agenda and criticized the old parties over the matter while in opposition, has now fallen into the “quorum trap” itself after failing to keep its lawmakers in the House while in government. The incident highlights how tactics used to criticize opponents while in opposition can eventually raise questions about the party itself when it assumes power.
According to the Federal Parliament Secretariat, the ruling and opposition parties have never held substantive discussions on ways to address the recurring quorum problem. RSP parliamentary party leader and Prime Minister Balendra Shah has also not been convening parliamentary party meetings regularly.
Two women arrested in Kathmandu for honey trap scheme
During the sitting, Nepali Congress Whip Nishcal Rai raised the issue of the quorum. After Speaker Dol Prasad Aryal directed the secretariat to verify the number of lawmakers present, a three-minute warning bell was rung in accordance with the regulations, giving lawmakers outside the chamber time to return. The subsequent count showed that 61 lawmakers were present. Since a quorum requires one-fourth of the total membership, or 69 lawmakers, the House was eight members short of the required number. The Speaker then informed the House that the proposal to consider the bill would be taken up at the next sitting and adjourned the meeting.
An official at the Federal Parliament Secretariat said the Speaker had expected RSP lawmakers outside the chamber to return after the bell was rung and that the quorum would consequently be met.
“The next sitting is scheduled for Monday. According to the agenda, proposals to consider three bills—two of which are at the stage of being put to a decision for approval—are scheduled for Monday,” the official said.
The proposals to consider the Mining and Mineral Resources Bill, 2083 BS, which could not be approved last Tuesday, the Passport (First Amendment) Bill, 2083 BS, and the Human Trafficking and Transportation (Control) (First Amendment) Bill, 2083 BS, are scheduled to be put to a decision on Monday.
Tuesday’s sitting began at 1:10 pm and continued until 8:05 pm. During the sitting, 133 lawmakers spoke during discussions on the principles of the Mining and Mineral Resources Bill during the emergency, zero and special hours. According to the parliamentary secretariat, a significant portion of the sitting was spent on speeches because many lawmakers had registered to speak.
Despite the lengthy sitting, however, the quorum was not met when the bill finally reached the decision-making stage. The Speaker has faced criticism for allowing the sitting to continue for so long without ensuring the minimum quorum of 69 lawmakers needed to approve the government bill, despite the ruling coalition holding a majority approaching two-thirds.
The incident has been interpreted as exposing serious irresponsibility, weak leadership, poor time management and partisan maneuvering in Nepal’s parliamentary practice. The lack of a clear and strict timetable specifying when a sitting should begin and end has been identified as one of the major problems.
Under the traditional practice of attempting to conclude all agenda items on the same day, the Speaker allowed the sitting to continue until late evening without setting a clear time limit. According to parliamentary experts, sittings are generally extended late into the night only when an urgent bill needs to be passed. There is little established practice of keeping the House in session until late at night for a bill that is merely being considered for approval.
Some experts suspect that the Speaker may have allowed the sitting to continue late into the evening because of his limited parliamentary experience.
The opposition, which has repeatedly protested both inside and outside Parliament that the “government did not give Parliament business,” was barely visible in the chamber when the bill reached the decision-making stage. The enthusiasm displayed in sloganeering and criticizing the government was not reflected in the actual legislative process, exposing what has been described as a double standard on the part of the opposition.
In this context, RSP lawmaker Ashika Tamang wrote on social media that although the prime minister had changed, delays in government work continued and that public complaints should be taken to the relevant offices and ministries. She also said it was difficult to maintain a quorum when parliamentary sittings continued until late in the evening, noting that lawmakers also had to remember the time to pick up their children from school as dusk approached.
Her remarks also point to the difficulty party whips face in keeping lawmakers inside the chamber throughout a prolonged sitting, despite issuing internal instructions before each session.
“Asking Parliament for business is legitimate, but it is also the opposition’s responsibility to improve or stop a bill by proposing amendments, presenting arguments or participating in voting once it reaches Parliament,” a former lawmaker said. “The ruling side should always remain alert to the opposition’s tactic of deliberately remaining absent to put moral pressure on the government by showing that it cannot maintain a quorum. But the ruling side does not appear to have paid attention to this.”
Article 94 of the Constitution also clearly states: “No question or proposal shall be presented for decision unless at least one-fourth of the total number of members of either House of the Federal Parliament is present at its meeting.”
Analysts, however, say lawmakers have increasingly used the constitutional quorum provision as a political weapon rather than treating it simply as a constitutional requirement that elected representatives must meet.
Whether a quorum is met is not merely a technical matter of lawmakers’ presence or absence; it can also involve strategic calculations by both the government and opposition. Experts say that unless measures such as taking digital attendance before each bill or proposal is put to a decision, enforcing a strict whip system and preparing a time-bound parliamentary calendar are introduced, quorum politics will continue to disrupt the lawmaking process.
