KATHMANDU, Sept 27: Debate over judicial independence and the separation of powers has returned to the House of Representatives after lawmakers from the ruling Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) questioned the structure of the judiciary and court rulings, alleging increased judicial interference in government affairs.
RSP lawmakers have proposed measures ranging from forming a parliamentary mechanism to study court rulings to investigating judges’ assets and restructuring the judiciary in the name of judicial reform, raising questions about the boundaries between Parliament and the judiciary.
RSP lawmaker Yagya Mani Neupane said in the House meeting on Tuesday that even a government with a two-thirds majority was finding it difficult to function because of court orders. He called for the formation of a task force to study judicial reform and proposed investigating judges’ assets and forming a parliamentary committee to study controversial court rulings.
Arguing that the judiciary was increasingly interfering in state policymaking and government affairs, Neupane asked, “If the government tries to take the wrong path, there is Parliament. But why is the court interfering so much in state policymaking?”
He said the current state of the judiciary should be studied by seeking views not only from judges, lawyers, politicians and government employees but also from citizens who have won or lost cases in court. He also called for a study of how and why court rulings were issued and their impact.
CPN-UML lawmaker Guru Prasad Baral raised a point of order against Neupane’s proposal. He argued that questioning judicial proceedings in Parliament in the name of restructuring the judiciary would raise sensitive issues concerning the separation of powers.
Keeping judiciary independent
The Constitution recognizes the principles of separation of powers, checks and balances among the legislature, executive and judiciary. Documents of the Nepal Law Commission also recognize the constitutional principle that all three organs of the state should independently perform their respective functions.
Article 105 of the Constitution, however, bars either House of the Federal Parliament from discussing matters that could adversely affect the adjudication of a case pending before a court or judicial acts performed by a judge in the course of their duties. The Constitution makes an exception for matters concerning a judge’s conduct during discussions on an impeachment motion.
Against this constitutional backdrop, proposals from ruling-party lawmakers to study court rulings and restructure the judiciary through Parliament have intensified debate over the respective jurisdictions of the legislature and judiciary.
On Wednesday, RSP lawmaker Madhukumar Chaulagain also questioned a recent interim order issued by the Supreme Court. He expressed dissatisfaction with the role of the court after its Constitutional Bench on September 16 ordered that sub-rule (11) of Rule 140 and Rule 259 of the House of Representatives Regulations, 2026, be kept on hold pending further proceedings.
Rule 259 states that the House regulations would remain in force as federal law and apply as a special law, while Rule 140(11) deals with the process of constitutional amendment. The Supreme Court issued the interim order after finding prima facie grounds that the provisions could conflict with the constitutional framework.
Chaulagain claimed that the order had blocked the path to constitutional amendment and curtailed the sovereign authority of federal lawmakers. He said the judiciary wanted to be independent and argued that the judiciary needed restructuring.
In particular, remarks by ruling-party lawmakers describing constitutional judicial review of government policies and decisions as “interference” have raised questions about the limits of judicial review.
Meanwhile, Neupane also drew the government’s attention to delays in implementing court rulings. He demanded that the concerned ministry provide an explanation within seven days as to why court decisions had not been implemented.
His demand has also brought into the debate the constitutional responsibility of the government and other state bodies to implement court rulings. Thus, while ruling-party lawmakers are questioning what they describe as excessive judicial interference in government affairs, Parliament is also discussing delays by government agencies in implementing court decisions.
These contrasting developments have raised questions over whether the government is seeking to uphold judicial independence while implementing court orders, or moving toward limiting the judiciary’s jurisdiction and role in judicial review. The statements and proposals made so far have intensified debate over the constitutional balance between judicial independence, parliamentary authority and the role of the executive.
Meanwhile, demands for a judicial investigation into incidents during the Gen Z movement and action against those responsible are also being raised in Parliament. RSP lawmaker Rajiv Khatri called for Parliament to pass a resolution pledging to deliver justice to youths killed during the movement, saying families of martyrs had been forced to cry for justice from Parliament itself.
The developments reflect a situation in which demands for justice are growing while questions are simultaneously being raised within the ruling party over the independence and jurisdiction of the constitutional institution responsible for delivering justice.
Under Nepal’s constitutional structure, Parliament is responsible for lawmaking and oversight of the government, the executive implements laws and policies, and the judiciary interprets laws and constitutional provisions and exercises judicial review.
Any weakening of the boundaries between these roles and the system of checks and balances could affect the institutional functioning of democratic governance.
