{"id":28181,"date":"2026-10-30T07:43:05","date_gmt":"2026-10-30T01:58:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/eng.dragonmedia.com.np\/?p=28181"},"modified":"2026-10-30T07:43:05","modified_gmt":"2026-10-30T01:58:05","slug":"the-constitution-must-be-interpreted-by-the-court-government-must-answer-to-parliament","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/eng.dragonmedia.com.np\/?p=28181","title":{"rendered":"The Constitution Must Be Interpreted by the Court, Government Must Answer to Parliament<\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

Editorial<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Supreme Court\u2019s Constitutional Bench has declined to issue an interim order in the case challenging the formation of the interim government and the dissolution of the House of Representatives. This does not amount to a final ruling on the constitutional validity of either decision. The bench has directed the Office of the President and the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers, among other defendants, to submit written responses within seven days. The case must now be decided on the basis of the Constitution, evidence and legal arguments, free from political pressure and street-level rhetoric. <\/p>\n

The dispute is about more than the formation of one government or the dissolution of one House. It raises a broader question: how should constitutional limits be interpreted during a crisis, and how can public mandate be balanced with institutional continuity in extraordinary circumstances? The court must settle the legal questions. Until then, neither the government nor political parties should turn the judicial process into a platform for advancing their own claims. Selectively interpreting the court\u2019s actions to condemn political opponents risks weakening public trust in justice.<\/p>\n

Governance cannot pause while the country awaits a judicial decision. People expect stability, reliable public services and visible results. A dispute over the government\u2019s legitimacy does not excuse it from administrative accountability. Nor can the need for quick action justify bypassing legal procedures or institutional safeguards. A government should be judged by the transparency of its decisions, the quality of its services and its accountability to citizens.<\/p>\n

Parliament\u2019s role is especially important. Reports say the government is preparing to convene the next session in December. Thirty-six bills are pending in the Federal Parliament, including 24 under consideration in House committees. A prolonged gap between sessions delays lawmaking, weakens oversight of the government and limits elected representatives\u2019 ability to raise public concerns. <\/p>\n

The timing of Parliament\u2019s next session should not be determined solely by political convenience. Pending bills must move through committees, disagreements should be debated openly, and the government must answer to the House. Making ordinances a routine tool of government or keeping Parliament inactive for an extended period weakens democratic institutions. If urgent circumstances require an ordinance, the government should clearly explain its purpose and limits, and ensure that Parliament reviews it.<\/p>\n

Opposition parties also have responsibilities. They have the right and duty to raise constitutional questions and scrutinise the government. But rejecting every state action in the name of protest, or turning court proceedings into political manoeuvring, offers no solution. The governing side, for its part, cannot place claims of majority or popularity above the Constitution. Public support matters in a democracy, but it must be expressed and exercised through constitutional processes.<\/p>\n

Nepal now needs restraint and responsible political conduct. The Supreme Court must fulfil its constitutional duty, the government must remain accountable for public services, and Parliament should meet promptly to address pending bills and matters of public concern. Constitutional disputes should be resolved through legal proceedings, while political deadlock should be addressed through dialogue and Parliament. That is the path to protecting public trust and strengthening democratic stability.<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t <\/div><\/div>\n\t\t