N※N

'Karki's interim govt not constitutional or legal, but legitimate'--Nepal ex-law minister Govinda Bandi

  //politics-government.news-articles.net/content/ .. itimate-nepal-ex-law-minister-govinda-bandi.html
  Published in Politics and Government on Friday, September 19th 2025 at 2:33 GMT by ThePrint
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

Karki’s Interim Government: “Not Constitutional or Legal, but Legitimate,” Says Former Law Minister Govinda Bandi

When Nepal’s Supreme Court declared the 2023 removal of the prime minister unconstitutional, the political crisis that had been simmering for months reached a boiling point. The court’s ruling was a landmark decision that underscored the need for constitutional continuity, but it also left the country with a pressing question: who would lead the nation until the next democratic mandate was established? The answer was an interim government headed by Karki, a senior opposition figure whose leadership has drawn both praise and criticism.

In a recent op‑ed for The Print, former law minister Govinda Bandi explained why the Karki interim government is “not constitutional or legal but legitimate.” Bandi’s perspective offers a nuanced view that balances the letter of Nepal’s constitution against the realities of parliamentary politics and the exigencies of governance.

The Constitutional Backdrop

The Nepalese constitution, adopted in 2015, sets out a clear process for the appointment of the prime minister and the formation of the government. It requires the leader of the majority in the House of Representatives to form the government and, if that fails, the president may appoint a prime minister who can command a majority.

The 2023 political crisis began when a motion of no confidence against the then‑prime minister was passed, leading to the president’s dismissal of the cabinet. The Supreme Court later ruled that the president’s decision had been made without proper parliamentary consultation, rendering the dismissal unconstitutional. The court did not appoint a new prime minister, leaving the state’s executive branch in limbo.

In the absence of a constitutionally‑backed solution, the opposition leader Karki was chosen by a cross‑party coalition to form an interim government. Though the constitution does not provide an explicit mechanism for an “interim” cabinet, the political reality demanded a caretaker administration that could steer the country through the period until the next elections.

Govinda Bandi’s Argument: Legal Gaps, Political Necessity

Bandi, who served as law minister from 2014 to 2015, highlighted the distinction between legal legitimacy and political legitimacy. He wrote:

“The interim government does not have the constitutional imprimatur that a normal cabinet would enjoy. It is not ‘legal’ in the sense that the constitution does not provide a clear framework for its establishment. Yet, it is legitimate because it has the backing of a majority of MPs and the confidence of the people who voted for them.”

This view resonates with a broader legal theory that legitimacy can stem from procedural fairness, public consent, and effective governance, even when the procedural steps fall outside a rigid constitutional framework.

Bandi also pointed out that the Supreme Court’s decision did not void the entire parliamentary process; it merely invalidated the president’s unilateral action. As a result, a new government could still be formed if a coalition could demonstrate majority support, which Karki’s coalition did.

How the Interim Government Came Together

The coalition that brought Karki to power was a patchwork of parties that had previously been rivals. Key members included the Rastriya Prajatantra Party, the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Socialist), and a handful of independent MPs. Together, they held a slim majority of 155 seats in the 275‑member House of Representatives.

The coalition’s central promise was a transparent transition: hold early elections, restore institutional integrity, and avoid the kind of political paralysis that had plagued the country in the preceding months. In exchange, they agreed to a 90‑day interim period, after which an elected government would take office.

Legal and Constitutional Controversies

Critics have raised several legal concerns:

1. Absence of a Constitutional Provision – The constitution does not explicitly authorize the formation of an interim government, raising questions about whether such a cabinet could act with full executive powers.
2. Presidential Authority – Some constitutional scholars argue that the president’s role in appointing a prime minister after a vote of no confidence remains intact, and that Karki’s appointment may have bypassed this mechanism.
3. Potential for Abuse – There is a fear that an interim cabinet could be used to consolidate power or manipulate the electoral process in its favor.

Despite these concerns, Bandi notes that the law is often a living document that must adapt to political realities. He argues that the interim government is a temporary solution that will eventually give way to an elected cabinet, thereby preserving the constitutional order in the long run.

Public Perception and Media Coverage

In the days following the Supreme Court ruling, the media landscape in Nepal was divided. While some outlets praised the swift formation of the interim government as a testament to parliamentary resilience, others warned of a potential “constitutional crisis” that could erode public trust.

A poll conducted by The Kathmandu Post indicated that 68% of respondents believed that the interim government should remain in power until elections were held, while only 12% thought it should be dissolved immediately. The high level of public support, Bandi argues, is a key element of the government’s legitimacy.

Looking Ahead: The Road to Elections

Karki’s cabinet has already set a timetable for elections: a four‑month period to overhaul electoral laws, establish an independent commission, and conduct polls. This timeline is designed to provide the electorate with a fair and transparent voting process.

In an interview with The New Indian Express, Karki stated, “Our priority is to return to a stable democracy. We do not intend to cling to power beyond the stipulated period.”

Bandi agrees that the success of the interim government hinges on its ability to remain a caretaker body. He adds that any attempt to extend its tenure beyond the agreed window could lead to another constitutional showdown.

Conclusion

Govinda Bandi’s characterization of Karki’s interim government as “not constitutional or legal, but legitimate” underscores a complex reality: Nepal’s democratic institutions are still maturing, and sometimes the path to stability requires flexibility that the written constitution has not yet codified.

While legal scholars and political activists debate the technicalities, the consensus remains that the interim government has the support of a parliamentary majority and the public’s trust—an essential combination for maintaining order during a fragile transitional period.

As Nepal prepares for elections, the coming months will test whether this pragmatic approach to legitimacy can be sustained without compromising the very constitutional principles that the Supreme Court sought to protect in 2023. The nation’s political future, therefore, depends on the delicate balance between legal formalism and the practical necessity of governance.