KATHMANDU, July 28: Parliament, the country’s supreme institution of people’s representatives, is meant to be a forum for thought, debate and policymaking. However, recent debates in the Federal Parliament have increasingly been dominated by unbalanced remarks and an uncontrolled style of expression rather than constructive discussion. The misuse of freedom of speech and parliamentary privileges by lawmakers has raised questions about their political maturity, integrity and public image.
Recent debates and disputes in Parliament have exposed poor word choices by lawmakers and the complications arising from them. Even when looking at incidents from mid-April to mid-July, the list is lengthy. Many MPs become agitated while defending their parties, supporters and activists or while criticizing the government, often making statements that later draw controversy.
On July 15, seven members of the UML-affiliated All Nepal National Free Students’ Union (ANNFSU) were arrested while protesting outside the South Gate of Singha Durbar. They were demonstrating with pamphlets and leaflets. The same day, during a meeting of the House of Representatives (HoR), UML Chief Whip Ain Bahadur Mahar defended the activists from the rostrum, saying, “Our activists were arrested at Singha Durbar’s South Gate; they did not come here to burn down Singha Durbar, honorable Speaker!”
According to experts, while such statements may politically reflect anger or support for party cadres, they can appear crude from a legal and parliamentary perspective. In the event of an investigation or legal proceedings, the MP making such a claim could be responsible for providing evidence.
If opposing parties or police reports prove otherwise, the MP’s statement could be considered false and leave a negative mark on the parliamentary record. Experts argue that instead of making definitive claims, the MP could have said, “I feel that they were not there to set fire to Singha Durbar, honorable Speaker,” or “We believe that was not their intention.” Such wording would have presented the statement as a personal belief or political assessment.
Parliamentary rules provide MPs with the right to express their views, but many lawmakers fail to understand the difference between an opinion and an unverified claim, eventually becoming victims of their own statements.
A similar incident occurred on May 26 when Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) lawmaker Jagdish Kharel, while speaking on a bill from the rostrum, described an argument presented by the opposition as “dramatic,” triggering a dispute in the House.
End of Budget Session: Will the ‘mini parliaments’ be active?
Nepali Communist Party (NCP) lawmaker Ramesh Malla demanded that the word “dramatic” be removed from the parliamentary record, arguing that it was offensive and unparliamentary. Nepali Congress lawmaker Narendra Kumar Kerung also took the rostrum and criticized Kharel’s choice of words. Kharel, however, defended his statement, arguing that the word did not undermine the dignity of Parliament.
The incident highlighted how lawmakers interpret the meaning and dignity of words differently, exposing the lack of uniform standards for parliamentary language. The opposition argued that Kharel responded as if he considered himself the prime minister. MP Kerung questioned, “We have sought answers not from you, but from the Prime Minister. Is our status here the same?”
Every statement made in Parliament becomes part of the official parliamentary record. Recently, the number of incidents involving MPs using undignified or unparliamentary language and later demanding that their remarks be removed from the record—after objections from other parties or rulings from the Speaker—has increased.
A similar controversy erupted on May 13 over remarks made by UML leader Ram Bahadur Thapa, which were later removed from the parliamentary record. Referring to the Nepali Army, he had asked, “Why did the Nepali Army, the country’s foremost protector, mysteriously become a silent spectator when the country was reduced to ashes and the offices of its leadership were attacked?” He had also questioned, “While Lipulekh is being encroached, why is the army obliviously playing at parades in squatter settlements?”
The remarks triggered controversy. Another UML lawmaker, Guru Baral, objected that only one side’s statement had been removed and demanded that the same standard be applied whenever offensive remarks were made in Parliament. This showed that even the removal of statements from parliamentary records had become vulnerable to accusations of bias, turning it into a bigger issue than the original problem of careless word choice.
Similarly, the Prime Minister’s statement regarding the border on May 31 sparked another controversy. A demand was made to remove the remarks from the parliamentary record, showing that disputes over language are no longer limited to lawmakers but have reached the highest level of government.
UML lawmaker Rajendra Kumar Rai also drew criticism after directing the following words at Speaker Dol Prasad Aryal during an HoR meeting: “Honorable Speaker, can you hear or not?”
Parliamentary rules state that the Speaker cannot be questioned unless the issue under discussion concerns the Speaker’s conduct. However, as Rai continued questioning the Speaker, the meeting had to be suspended for 15 minutes.
RSP lawmaker Tika Sangraula (Jwala) cited Rule 21, provision ‘B’ of the HoR Rules, 2027, arguing that criticism of the Speaker’s authority and dignity is prohibited. She demanded that Rai’s remarks be removed from the parliamentary record, and the Speaker later directed that the action be taken.
Experts say it is embarrassing for lawmakers to have their own words removed from parliamentary records for being unparliamentary. Such incidents raise questions about MPs’ maturity and send a negative message to their supporters.
According to parliamentary experts, issues raised in the House should be presented in the third person through the chairperson—the Speaker or president of the sitting. However, during discussions on the budget bill for fiscal year 2026/27, lawmakers frequently used direct second-person references while accusing one another. Instead of addressing ministers through the Speaker, directly saying, “Honorable Minister, you did…” creates unnecessary confrontation inside the House.
Such practices have repeatedly led to disruptions, adjournments and the waste of valuable parliamentary time.
The lack of restraint has not been limited to verbal exchanges. In May, tensions rose when Speaker Dol Prasad Aryal was presenting amendments to the HoR Rule Draft Committee’s report for approval. Nepali Congress Chief Whip Basana Thapa proposed sending the amendments back to the committee for detailed discussion.
The 15-member Draft Committee, formed on April 6, 2026, to revise the HoR’s rules of procedure, had submitted the draft to Speaker Aryal. When the Speaker initiated the approval process in the House on May 31, clashes between ruling and opposition lawmakers forced him to intervene repeatedly.
There are growing concerns that such verbal confrontations could eventually turn physical.
The issue extends beyond parliamentary debates. When opposition lawmakers surrounded the rostrum and created disorder, Speaker Aryal consulted officials at the Parliamentary Secretariat about investigating such incidents. An investigation committee has already prepared a report, though it has not yet been made public, indicating that the issue has become an institutional concern.
Those familiar with parliamentary proceedings say an effective speech is not measured by a loud voice or provocative language. Careful word choice, proper grammar, diplomatic expression and respect for parliamentary dignity are what enhance a lawmaker’s stature.
MPs who continue making impulsive statements while defending their activists or policies, instead of presenting their arguments logically and responsibly, risk becoming trapped by their own words.
