KATHMANDU: Nepali Congress (NC) leader Krishna Prasad Sitaula has stressed the need for a mechanism that allows the Constitutional Council to make decisions based on majority votes, particularly in situations where consensus cannot be reached or all members are not present.
Speaking to journalists in Kathmandu on Sunday, Sitaula said that while the ideal is to reach a unanimous decision in the first phase of council meetings, a majority-based decision-making provision should be in place as a fallback to avoid deadlock.
“In the first phase, all members of the Constitutional Council should be present, and the goal should be to reach a unanimous decision,” he said. “But if consensus is not possible, and not all members are present, then a decision should be made by a majority in the second phase.”
His remarks come at a time when President Ram Chandra Paudel has returned the Constitutional Council bill passed by Parliament, which included a provision for decision-making by majority vote. The President reportedly returned the bill citing the need for broader political consensus on constitutional appointments.
Sitaula clarified that the bill’s intent, as he interprets it, is to first seek unanimity and then allow majority-based decisions if that fails. He emphasized the importance of ensuring the Council remains functional even in reduced circumstances.
“The Constitutional Council has six members, and the Law Minister is also included during discussions to recommend the Chief Justice,” he explained. “If all six are present, a majority would mean at least four members. If only four are present, then a majority would be three, not two.”
Sitaula also raised concerns about potential vacancies during elections or political transitions. “When the House of Representatives is dissolved, the Leader of the Opposition is absent. After nominations, the Speaker and Deputy Speaker may also be unavailable.
At such times, only three members may remain in the Council,” he said. “Even in that case, a decision must be made, with the involvement of the Election Commission if necessary. The process should not be left in limbo.”
His remarks highlight the ongoing debate over how to ensure the Constitutional Council can function effectively without undermining constitutional principles or democratic legitimacy.
Comment