Spread the love

By Our Reporter

Madhesh Province has once again become a flashpoint of constitutional and political conflict and abuse of power after Province Chief Sabitra Subedi Bhandari’s controversial move to appoint UML leader Saroj Kumar Yadav as Chief Minister. The manner in which the oath of office was administered, reportedly at a private cottage while Bhandari was en route to Kathmandu for medical treatment, has triggered outrage across the political spectrum. What began as a procedural irregularity has now grown into a full-blown crisis, shaking confidence in the functioning of Nepal’s federal system.

At the core of the dispute lies Bhandari’s interpretation of Article 168 of the Constitution. Instead of calling for a coalition under Article 168(2), she invoked Article 168(3), citing UML’s numerical strength. Her decision ignored ongoing discussions among other parties to form a majority coalition, prompting allegations that she acted as a UML loyalist rather than an impartial constitutional authority. The federal cabinet intervened swiftly, recommending her removal. President Ramchandra Paudel endorsed the move and appointed Dr. Surendra Labh Karna as her replacement.

The controversy has not only destabilized the provincial government but also reopened the national debate on the integrity of Nepal’s federalism. Madhesh-based parties united under the Federal Democratic Front have condemned Bhandari’s act as an assault on democracy and the constitution. They argue that the oath-taking outside the official venue symbolized the erosion of institutional norms. Their statement echoed broader concerns about political manipulation at the provincial level, a pattern that has recently surfaced in Gandaki, Koshi, Karnali, and Sudurpaschim provinces as well.

While Bhandari’s secretariat defended her action as constitutionally valid, the appointment of Yadav has deepened divisions within and across parties. The Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP), which initially supported the UML-led government, now finds itself internally divided after its chair, Rajendra Lingden, ordered his party’s minister to withdraw. Other opposition parties, including Congress, LSP, JSP, Janamat, Maoist Centre, and Unified Socialist, have accused Bhandari of violating due process. They maintain that former Chief Minister Jitendra Prasad Sonar’s resignation was followed by legitimate efforts to form a new coalition, which she ignored.

Meanwhile, several writ petitions challenging Yadav’s appointment have been filed at the Supreme Court, and seven opposition parties are preparing to join the legal battle. Analysts see this as an inevitable outcome of the growing tension between provincial autonomy and partisan interests. Political analyst Tula Narayan Sah remarked that “Article 168(2) was not exhausted, yet the Province Chief jumped to 168(3),” calling it a dangerous precedent that could weaken the credibility of federalism itself.

The dismissal of Bhandari was an extraordinary step, but it underscores the seriousness of the constitutional breach. It also highlights how fragile Nepal’s federal structure remains, where the authority of province chiefs often becomes a tool of party influence rather than a symbol of constitutional balance. As the Supreme Court begins its deliberation, the case is likely to serve as a test of how well Nepal’s federal framework can withstand political manipulation and safeguard democratic norms.