Spread the love

By Our Reporter

The decision by eight former Nepali Congress lawmakers to approach the Supreme Court seeking the reinstatement of the dissolved House of Representatives has stirred significant unease within the party. Represented by former Attorney General Khamm Bahadur Khati, these legislators moved independently, despite the party’s clear stance to move forward with elections on March 5. The action has highlighted an unusual tension between individual conviction and party discipline, exposing fissures at a moment when cohesion is essential for Congress.

While the Congress has long maintained that the dissolution of the House was unconstitutional, it has also repeatedly stressed that the matter is now before the judiciary and awaits the Supreme Court’s final interpretation. Party leaders, including General Secretary Gagan Thapa and senior figures like Shekhar Koirala, have openly expressed surprise at the lawmakers’ move. Thapa emphasized that the decision to file the writ does not represent the party’s official position, framing it as a personal initiative by the eight former parliamentarians. Such statements underline the party’s attempt to draw a clear line between individual action and institutional policy.

The context is crucial. Nepali Congress has repeatedly affirmed its commitment to the constitutional framework, recognizing that interim governance and election dates have been set. Past party meetings have stressed that solutions could have been pursued within the existing legal structure and that the dissolution, while constitutionally questionable, is ultimately subject to judicial review. In this sense, the writ petition appears to undermine the party’s disciplined approach and its publicly stated electoral strategy, raising questions about internal coherence at a critical political juncture.

Former lawmakers like Congress chief whip Ghimire have defended the move, citing the party’s long-standing opposition to the dissolution and framing the writ as an effort to uphold democratic principles. Yet, the lack of prior discussion within the central working committee and the absence of institutional backing suggest a breach of party discipline. Leaders such as Dr. Shekhar Koirala have underscored that the writ represents personal action, with no consultation or alignment with official party strategy.

The move has also highlighted an uncomfortable double standard. Congress has positioned itself as a defender of constitutional principles and democratic norms, yet allowing individuals to take unilateral legal action risks projecting inconsistency and internal discord. At a time when the nation faces critical political transitions, such discrepancies can erode public confidence and weaken the party’s negotiating position. The party’s spokespersons have tried to contain the fallout by clarifying that Congress’s formal stance remains unchanged, with elections slated for March 5, but the optics of division are difficult to ignore.

Ultimately, the incident serves as a reminder of the delicate balancing act Congress must maintain between respecting members’ personal convictions and ensuring unified action. The Supreme Court’s eventual verdict on the dissolution will carry legal weight, but within Congress, the episode is a test of discipline, coherence, and the party’s ability to manage internal dissent. If unchecked, such individual initiatives could embolden further unilateral actions, undermining both the party’s image and its strategic objectives in an already volatile political environment.