If the Constitution were to be amended today, what rule would be used?
Summary
A Supreme Court interim order has put Rule 140(11) of the House of Representatives Regulations in abeyance, creating uncertainty over how Nepal’s Parliament can pass a constitutional amendment bill. Lawyers say Article 274 still provides the constitutional basis, but the immediate procedural route remains unresolved.
Key Points
- The Supreme Court has suspended Rule 140(11) and Rule 259 of the House of Representatives Regulations until further orders.
- The suspension has raised a procedural dilemma because the rule governing passage of a constitutional amendment bill is no longer operative.
- Lawyers differ on whether Parliament can still amend the Constitution by following Article 274 and securing separate two-thirds majorities in both Houses.
- The Supreme Court’s final ruling will determine whether the disputed parliamentary rule was constitutionally valid.
