Kathmandu, September 25
The government has introduced a bill seeking to restore the original provisions of 85 laws that were repealed through an ordinance issued to facilitate the removal of public office-holders.
The Bill to Restore Provisions of Some Nepal Acts was registered in the House of Representatives on September 21. Its stated objective is to restore the legal provisions that were in force before the ordinance was issued, after the ordinance became inactive.
The move follows the lapse of the Special Provisions Regarding the Removal of Public Office-Holders Ordinance, 2026, which amended provisions in 110 existing laws and resulted in the removal of 1,534 public office-holders. Parliament’s records show that the ordinance subsequently became inactive under Article 114(2)(g) of the Constitution.
No new appointments have yet been made to all of the positions left vacant following the removals. The government has now sought to restore the original provisions of 85 of the 110 laws affected by the ordinance.
The proposed bill contains only two sections. The first specifies its name and provides that it will come into force immediately after being enacted into law.
The second section states that the provisions that existed before the ordinance will be deemed to have been restored. It lists the 85 laws whose provisions are to be revived.
The bill also contains a one-line explanatory note, stating that the provisions amended or repealed by the Special Provisions Regarding the Removal of Public Office-Holders Ordinance, 2026 are being restored to their previous form.
Its preamble similarly states that Parliament is enacting the law because it is considered desirable to restore the provisions that were amended or repealed by the ordinance.
The wording of the preamble has drawn attention because it explicitly says that restoring the previous legal arrangements is desirable.
Questions over use of ordinance power
Constitutional expert Bipin Adhikari has described the bill as an example of what he considers an excessive use of the executive’s ordinance-making authority.
He questioned the need to amend 110 laws through a single ordinance.
“There was nothing that would have immediately happened if such an ordinance had not been issued,” Adhikari said. “Issuing an ordinance to amend so many laws through a single instrument was intentional. It was something that should not have been done, but it was done.”
Adhikari argued that using an ordinance to achieve a political objective and subsequently introducing legislation to restore the previous legal provisions represents, in his view, an extreme misuse of executive authority.
“The declared powers under which the ordinance was issued can be exercised,” he said. “But the objective of this ordinance was political. Therefore, it was a misuse.”
Article 114 of the Constitution allows the President to issue an ordinance on the recommendation of the Council of Ministers when immediate action is necessary while Parliament is not in session. An ordinance has the same force as an Act but must be presented to both houses of the federal parliament.
If both houses do not accept it, the ordinance automatically ceases to operate. Under the constitutional process, a replacement bill must be enacted within the stipulated period for the changes introduced by the ordinance to continue.
The Shah government issued eight ordinances between April 30 and May 5. All eight were subsequently presented in Parliament.
Four of them were successfully replaced by legislation, covering cooperatives, public procurement, anti-money laundering and certain laws relating to health science academies. The other ordinances, including the one concerning the removal of public office-holders, did not complete the replacement process.
The public office-holders removal ordinance was specifically designed to remove politically appointed officials from public institutions. Contemporary reporting said it was part of a broader government effort to remove officials appointed or nominated by previous governments.
What happens when an ordinance expires?
Adhikari said the constitutional purpose of an ordinance is to address situations in which immediate legal action is necessary and waiting for Parliament could leave a legal gap.
“The intention of the Constitution is to ensure the law through an ordinance when an emergency situation cannot be addressed because of the absence of law, or when the existing law cannot function,” he said. “That intention is not visible here.”
He said the sequence of events suggested that the ordinance was primarily used to remove public office-holders and that the government’s decision to restore the previous provisions after the ordinance expired strengthens that interpretation.
“Bringing an ordinance, doing what you want and then bringing a bill to return to the previous arrangement does not correspond with the spirit of the Constitution,” he said.
The Supreme Court has previously examined questions surrounding the use of ordinances. In a 2021 case concerning a citizenship ordinance, the Constitutional Bench said ordinances should not be used as an instrument for achieving political objectives and warned that bypassing Parliament for political purposes could improperly interfere with the legislature’s authority.
In another ruling in November 2025 concerning changes made through an ordinance to the Political Parties Act, the Supreme Court held that an ordinance cannot permanently displace, amend or repeal provisions of a permanent law enacted through the legislative process.
The court’s ruling stated that a temporary power with a limited lifespan cannot permanently replace a law passed after broader parliamentary deliberation.
No direct challenge to removal ordinance
According to Supreme Court spokesperson Arjun Prasad Koirala, no petition has been filed directly challenging the Special Provisions Regarding the Removal of Public Office-Holders Ordinance, 2026.
“There are around three [petitions] concerning individuals,” Koirala told Onlinekhabar.
Constitutionally, an ordinance has the force of law while it remains in effect. Therefore, officials removed under the ordinance are considered to have been legally removed under the provisions that were then in force.
However, Adhikari said the ordinance’s constitutional validity and purpose could still become subjects of judicial scrutiny.
“The question of its justification arises once the ordinance fails to be replaced by an Act within 60 days,” he said. “And after the government itself brings a bill to restore the provisions repealed by that same ordinance, those questioning it or arguing before the court have additional grounds.”
He said the court could potentially invalidate the ordinance or interpret the circumstances surrounding its use when considering related disputes.
Nepal’s long history of ordinance use
Nepal has had constitutional provisions allowing the executive to issue ordinances for decades. The power was first provided for under the Government of Nepal Act, 2004, although that constitutional arrangement was never implemented.
The Interim Government of Nepal Act, 2007 provided greater clarity on ordinances, while their use became more established after the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal, 2015 came into force.
According to a study conducted by the Federal Parliament Secretariat, five ordinances were issued in 1959 and two in 1960. Three of the five issued in 1959 were related to taxation.
After the Constitution of Nepal, 1962, 64 ordinances were issued.
Under the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal, 1990, 182 ordinances were issued between 1990 and 2006. The number rose sharply in the final years of that period, with 27 ordinances issued in 2003, 33 in 2004 and 79 in 2005.
After the Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2006 came into effect, 39 ordinances were issued up to 2015.
Following the promulgation of the current Constitution in 2015, three ordinances were issued in 2017, five in 2018, 11 in 2020, 28 in 2021, nine in 2022, two in 2023 and seven in 2024.
The use of ordinances continued in 2025, including during the political transition following the Gen Z movement.
The interim government led by Sushila Karki issued ordinances concerning the Nepal Special Service Act, elections to the House of Representatives and the voter list. It also sent a Constitutional Council-related ordinance to the president, who did not issue it.
The Balendra Shah government has continued the practice in 2026, issuing eight ordinances. Four have since been converted into Acts, while the remaining measures have been dealt with through other legislative processes.
The latest bill to restore the previous provisions of 85 laws therefore represents another stage in the legal aftermath of the government’s use of ordinances earlier this year.
