Deeksha G.C., Kathmandu
Nepal’s constitutional history is one of recurring transitions. From the 1950 revolution to the Panchayat era, the democratic restoration of 1990, the 2006 movement, and the adoption of federal republicanism, the country has repeatedly confronted moments when the written text of the Constitution collided with political reality. Today, Nepal finds itself at another such moment.
Following the recent mass movement, the government resigned and Parliament was rendered irrelevant. Discredited political parties had lost their public mandate. In this vacuum, the President took the unprecedented step of dissolving Parliament and appointing the Chief Justice as interim Prime Minister.
Nepal’s 2015 Constitution is explicit: the House of Representatives can be dissolved only through parliamentary mechanisms—when a Prime Minister loses confidence, when no coalition is viable, and ultimately when the House collapses under its own deadlock. The President is not granted unilateral authority to dissolve Parliament.
On these grounds, the move has been widely criticized as unconstitutional. The argument is straightforward: if the Constitution is the rulebook, then playing outside its rules is a violation of legality.
Yet constitutions are more than texts. They are political covenants meant to safeguard democracy in both ordinary and extraordinary times. No constitution can anticipate every crisis. At times, it is the spirit of constitutionalism, rather than the letter alone, that must provide guidance.
This brings us to the central tension between legality and legitimacy.
Legality demands fidelity to written provisions.
Legitimacy rests on public trust, moral authority, and democratic justification.
A decision may lack textual basis yet remain legitimate if it reflects the people’s will and restores stability. Today, legality is contested, but legitimacy has been supplied by the movement and by a generation that refused to accept politics-as-usual.
Globally, transitions often outpace constitutions. India’s Emergency in 1975 tested the boundaries of legality, while South Africa’s post-apartheid transition relied heavily on moral legitimacy and political consensus. In Nepal itself, the Supreme Court’s 2006 revival of Parliament was justified not on strict constitutional grounds but on democratic necessity.
Nepal’s present moment is not unique in this sense. Extraordinary crises often demand extraordinary remedies.
The recent uprising revealed a deep rupture between the people and the established parties. Gen Z, leading the streets, symbolized both disillusionment with the past and hope for the future. To simply revive the old Parliament or recycle discredited actors would have betrayed this aspiration.
By appointing leadership aligned with the movement, the President has responded to that demand for a fresh start.
The road ahead is precarious.
The interim leadership must govern without weakening constitutionalism.
Old parties may resist, complicating the transition.
The international community must be reassured that Nepal remains anchored in democratic norms.
Above all, the aspirations of the younger generation must be translated into lasting reforms.
Failure on these fronts would condemn the move as reckless and unconstitutional. Success, however, could define it as a turning point in Nepal’s democratic evolution.
The core question remains: is the Constitution merely its text, or also the democratic values it embodies?
The president’s action may not rest on legal certainty, but it can be defended on grounds of constitutional spirit. It privileges legitimacy over legality—an approach that history has sometimes demanded when institutions reach paralysis.
The burden now rests on Interim Prime Minister Sushila Karki and her government. If they can channel this moment into institutional reform, political renewal, and generational inclusion, history will remember this decision as courageous rather than reckless, visionary rather than unlawful.
Nepal is once again in transition. The difference this time is the possibility that transition will not merely recycle old elites but finally deliver stability and deepen democracy.
