Spread the love

By Our Reporter

The recent dismissal of Madhesh Province Chief Sumitra Bhandari has exposed the fragility of rule of law and federalism in the province. Her unilateral appointment and secretive swearing-in of a chief minister, carried out in apparent coordination with party directives, directly flouted constitutional norms and judicial precedents. Acting on the cabinet’s recommendation, President Ramchandra Paudel removed her, a justified step. Yet, the removal addresses only the surface. The deeper problem lies in the blatant bypassing of established procedures and the use of a clandestine oath-taking to override democratic processes.

Evidence points to Bhandari prioritizing party instructions, specifically from CPN-UML, over the dignity of her office and parliamentary norms. Questions remain about which party leaders were consulted and how the secretive plan was executed. Investigation may uncover broader complicity, including among the provincial assembly speaker and other officials. The episode highlights not just an individual lapse but a coordinated attempt to subvert the federal system and undermine democratic governance.

Constitutionally, Article 168 clearly defines the process for appointing a chief minister. If sub-clause (1) cannot be applied, sub-clause (2) provides the framework, while sub-clause (3) comes into play only if all attempts fail. Supreme Court rulings reinforce that a majority-backed party in the assembly must select the chief minister, a precedent Bhandari could not have ignored. Her deliberate action reflects intent to challenge the constitution and the established legal framework. Treating such actions as mere technicalities risks normalizing breaches of law and encourages further disorder.

The timing of her unilateral appointment worsened the impact. Assembly parties were actively forming a majority-backed government, and the court had to issue interim orders preventing the newly sworn-in chief minister from making major decisions. Leaders outside CPN-UML openly acknowledged that judicial intervention was necessary to maintain constitutional order.

The episode also underscores a recurring challenge in Nepal’s political culture: impunity. Historical examples, like former Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli dissolving parliament twice in violation of law, show that unconstitutional political maneuvers rarely lead to personal accountability. Courts reverse decisions but rarely punish the officials behind them, creating a cycle where disregard for procedure persists. Had mechanisms existed to hold Bhandari personally accountable, this crisis might have been avoided.

Beyond the immediate legal violation, the incident exposes long-standing patterns in Madhesh politics: corruption, nepotism, inaction, and procedural anomalies. While CPN-UML criticizes the president for overstepping after the Gen Z protests, its own role in violating norms undermines its moral authority. Such behavior weakens trust in federal governance, fuels cynicism about the constitutional system, and risks eroding public confidence in democratic institutions.

The Madhesh Province turmoil demonstrates that safeguarding federalism requires more than judicial corrections. It demands accountability, transparency, and consistent respect for constitutional procedures. Without these, political ambition will continue to destabilize governance, leaving the province—and the broader federal system—vulnerable to repeated crises.