{"id":6746,"date":"2026-10-29T08:09:48","date_gmt":"2026-10-29T02:24:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/himalini.com\/en\/?p=6746"},"modified":"2026-10-29T08:09:48","modified_gmt":"2026-10-29T02:24:48","slug":"nepal-speaker-faces-scrutiny-over-rejection-of-mps-amendments-to-bill","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/himalini.com\/en\/nepal-speaker-faces-scrutiny-over-rejection-of-mps-amendments-to-bill.html","title":{"rendered":"Nepal Speaker Faces Scrutiny Over Rejection of MPs\u2019 Amendments to Bill"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Screenshot<\/a><\/p>\n

Himalini Desk, Kathmandu, 29 October.<\/p>\n

Nepal\u2019s Speaker, Dol Prasad Aryal, has come under scrutiny after rejecting dozens of amendments proposed by lawmakers to several bills, with questions emerging over whether some of the rejections were justified under the House of Representatives Regulations.<\/p>\n

An examination of amendments to the Nepal Law Commission Amendment Bill, the Children Act Amendment Bill and the Human Trafficking and Transportation Control Amendment Bill reportedly found instances in which lawmakers\u2019 proposals were rejected on technical grounds, even when their amendments appeared relevant to the subject matter of the bills.<\/p>\n

The controversy has raised concerns about parliamentary procedures, the role of the Speaker in the legislative process and the ability of lawmakers to contribute to improving proposed legislation.<\/p>\n

## 23 Amendments Rejected in Law Commission Bill<\/p>\n

According to a report published by Setopati, Speaker Aryal rejected 23 amendments submitted by 11 lawmakers to the Nepal Law Commission Amendment Bill.<\/p>\n

The bill introduced by the government proposed making the Minister for Law the chairperson of the Nepal Law Commission. However, Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) lawmaker Kamal Subedi proposed an alternative arrangement under which the chairperson would be appointed by the government on the recommendation of a selection committee.<\/p>\n

Subedi proposed that the chairperson should be selected from among individuals with at least 25 years of experience in law drafting, justice, constitutional law, or law and public policy.<\/p>\n

His proposal also called for a selection committee coordinated by the chairperson of a parliamentary subject committee, with the Secretary of the Ministry of Law, the president of the Nepal Bar Association and a distinguished expert in law or constitutional law as members.<\/p>\n

However, the proposal was rejected on the grounds that it sought to add a new section to the bill.<\/p>\n

Speaker Aryal reportedly cited Rule 113(1) of the House of Representatives Regulations, stating that the amendment was unclear or lacked meaningful clarity, was not sufficiently related to the relevant section, and did not specify which wording should be replaced.<\/p>\n

Critics have questioned this reasoning, arguing that the parliamentary regulations do not explicitly prohibit lawmakers from proposing additional sections to an amendment bill.<\/p>\n

They also point out that the proposed selection committee was directly connected to Subedi\u2019s proposal to change the process for appointing the commission\u2019s chairperson.<\/p>\n

While 19 amendment proposals involving 76 individual amendments were submitted by 22 lawmakers to the bill, 23 amendments were rejected, according to the report.<\/p>\n

## Amendments to Children Act Also Rejected<\/p>\n

Questions have also been raised over the rejection of 47 amendments to the Children Act Amendment Bill.<\/p>\n

One example involves RSP lawmaker Rima BishwaKarma, who proposed adding safeguards concerning children who escape from custody or are subsequently found or appear before a court.<\/p>\n

The government\u2019s proposed amendment provides for recommending the transfer of a person who has reached the age of 18 but has not demonstrated improved conduct before completing their period in a juvenile correctional home.<\/p>\n

BishwaKarma proposed that courts should consider three factors before deciding whether a child who had absconded should be subjected to bail, a guarantee, detention or transfer to prison.<\/p>\n

These factors were the reasons for absconding, including whether the act was deliberate or resulted from genuine hardship or inability; the individual’s current conduct; and the possibility of rehabilitation.<\/p>\n

Her proposal was rejected on the grounds that it was not sufficiently related to the relevant section, was inconsistent with the principles or decisions previously approved by the House, and lacked clarity.<\/p>\n

The rejection has prompted questions about whether the proposed safeguards were adequately examined before the decision was made.<\/p>\n

## Compensation Deadline Proposal Also Turned Down<\/p>\n

Another rejected amendment concerned compensation for victims of offences committed by children.<\/p>\n

Lawmaker Eshuda Kumari Baral proposed that when a child responsible for an offence is unable to pay compensation, the amount should be provided through the Victim Relief Fund within 15 days of a court order.<\/p>\n

The government\u2019s bill already provides for compensation through the Victim Relief Fund under prevailing law when the child cannot pay.<\/p>\n

Baral sought to introduce a specific deadline to ensure timely payment. However, her proposal was rejected under Rule 113(c) on the grounds that it was unclear or lacked meaningful clarity.<\/p>\n

The case has further fuelled concerns that amendments intended to make legal provisions more specific and enforceable may be rejected without adequate consideration of their substance.<\/p>\n

## Dispute Over Terminology in Human Trafficking Bill<\/p>\n

A similar issue reportedly arose during consideration of the Human Trafficking and Transportation Control Amendment Bill.<\/p>\n

RSP parliamentary whip Prakash Chandra Pariyar proposed replacing the terms commonly translated as \u201cprostitution\u201d and \u201cvisiting prostitutes\u201d in Section 11 with alternative terminology, including \u201csex trade\u201d and a phrase referring to the use of another person’s body.<\/p>\n

The proposed changes concerned wording used at three places in the government\u2019s bill.<\/p>\n

However, the amendment was also rejected on the grounds that it was unclear.<\/p>\n

The case has added to concerns about the consistency with which technical objections are being applied to amendments submitted by lawmakers.<\/p>\n

## Parliamentary Rules and the Speaker\u2019s Authority<\/p>\n

Rule 113(1) of the House of Representatives Regulations sets out conditions under which amendments may be rejected. These include proposals that are unclear, inconsistent with the principles of the bill, unrelated to the relevant provision, contrary to principles or decisions previously approved by the House, or insufficiently precise about the wording to be replaced.<\/p>\n

The rules require amendments to be linked to the relevant provisions of a bill. However, questions arise when an amendment addresses a related issue but is rejected as unrelated or unclear.<\/p>\n

Federal Parliament Secretariat spokesperson Ekram Giri said the regulations give the Speaker authority to decide whether amendments to bills should be accepted.<\/p>\n

He explained that lawmakers generally submit amendments to the same sections that the government seeks to amend. Nevertheless, he acknowledged that amendments addressing relevant subject matter may also be considered where they are sufficiently connected to the provisions concerned.<\/p>\n

According to sources at the Parliament Secretariat, some lawmakers have begun seeking explanations from officials after repeated rejections of their proposals.<\/p>\n

One senior Secretariat official reportedly said officials had struggled to provide a satisfactory explanation when asked why proposals to add new sections had been rejected.<\/p>\n

The official also argued that parliamentary committees should play the central role in deciding the substance of amendments, while the Secretariat’s role should remain largely technical.<\/p>\n

## Concerns Over Legislative Scrutiny<\/p>\n

The controversy has prompted broader questions about the quality of legislative scrutiny in Nepal\u2019s parliament.<\/p>\n

A lawmaker quoted anonymously by Setopati said some members had entered parliament with the aim of changing the existing system but were finding it difficult to get new legislative proposals accepted.<\/p>\n

The lawmaker also expressed concern that repeated rejection of amendments could discourage members from studying bills in detail and preparing proposals to improve them.<\/p>\n

The issue is particularly significant because amendments allow elected representatives to identify gaps in government legislation, propose safeguards and make laws more precise and effective.<\/p>\n

While the Speaker has a responsibility to ensure that parliamentary procedures are followed, critics argue that technical requirements should be applied consistently and that substantive proposals should receive careful examination.<\/p>\n

The controversy has therefore renewed calls for greater transparency in the handling of amendments and clearer explanations when lawmakers\u2019 proposals are rejected.<\/p>\n

As Nepal continues to debate legislative reforms, the balance between procedural compliance and meaningful parliamentary participation remains an important test of the effectiveness of its democratic institutions.\"file<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Himalini Desk, Kathmandu, 29 October. Nepal\u2019s Speaker, Dol Prasad Aryal, has come under scrutiny after rejecting dozens of amendments proposed by lawmakers to several bills, with questions emerging over whether some of the rejections were justified under the House of Representatives Regulations. An examination of amendments to the Nepal Law Commission Amendment Bill, the Children […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":6747,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[13,3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6746","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-nepal","category-top-stories-of-madhesh"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/himalini.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6746","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/himalini.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/himalini.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/himalini.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/himalini.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6746"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/himalini.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6746\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6748,"href":"https:\/\/himalini.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6746\/revisions\/6748"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/himalini.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6747"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/himalini.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6746"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/himalini.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6746"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/himalini.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6746"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}