Major opposition parties have walked out of Nepal’s government taskforce on constitutional review, accusing it of overreach and risking the hard-won 2015 consensus amid deep political divisions.

A Nepal government-appointed taskforce tasked with preparing a discussion paper on constitutional amendments has been thrown into disarray after representatives from four major political parties formally walked out on Monday, citing fundamental disagreements over its mandate and methods.

The walkout by the Nepali Communist Party (NCP), Loktantrik Samajbadi Party (LSP), Janata Samajbadi Party (JSP), and Rastriya Janamorcha has raised fresh concerns about the stability of Nepal’s fragile constitutional framework, just months after the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) secured a landslide victory in the March 2026 general elections.

Background of the Taskforce

The taskforce, coordinated by Asim Shah – a filmmaker-turned-political advisor to Prime Minister Balendra Shah (popularly known as Balen) – was formed shortly after the RSP government took office in late March 2026. Its stated mandate was to gather stakeholder inputs, consult experts, and draft a discussion paper on potential amendments within a tight 100-day deadline.

This initiative formed part of the RSP’s ambitious 100-point governance reform roadmap, reflecting the new government’s reformist zeal following widespread Gen Z-led protests in September 2025 that toppled the previous establishment and highlighted public frustration with corruption, governance failures, and political instability.

The RSP, a relatively young party positioning itself as an alternative to traditional forces, won around 182 seats in the 275-member House of Representatives, giving it a strong mandate but also placing it in direct confrontation with entrenched parties over sensitive constitutional issues.

Core Disputes and Dissenting Voices

The central dispute revolves around whether the panel is merely preparing a neutral discussion paper or subtly laying the groundwork for a more comprehensive rewrite of the 2015 Constitution. Dissenting parties handed over a six-point memorandum to coordinator Asim Shah, demanding the immediate scrapping of the current process.

Key objections include the alleged lack of clarity on the taskforce’s legal jurisdiction, concerns over open-ended consultations that could touch the preamble and basic structures of the constitution, and the absence of broad national consensus. Signatories – Dev Gurung (NCP), Laxman Lal Karna (LSP), Surendra Jha (JSP), and Manoj Bhatt (Rastriya Janamorcha) – emphasised that any amendments must emerge from an all-party mechanism respecting the 2015 document’s foundational principles.

NCP leader Dev Gurung argued that the taskforce had overstepped its bounds, functioning more like a drafting committee than a consultative body. Laxman Lal Karna highlighted problematic methods, such as door-to-door opinion collection and potential majority-based decision-making, warning that tampering with the preamble could reopen debates on monarchy, Hindu statehood, and other divisive issues.

Nepali Congress President Gagan Kumar Thapa, from the main opposition, had earlier criticized the approach as “immature and reckless,” stressing the 2015 Constitution’s origins in historic struggles by marginalized communities including Madhesis, indigenous groups, Dalits, and Tharus.

CPN-UML representative Bhishma Adhikari noted his party had boycotted from the outset, insisting that constitutional amendments should occur strictly through parliamentary procedures.

Government’s Defence and Next Steps

Taskforce coordinator Asim Shah dismissed the walkout as political opportunism, pointing out that dissenting representatives had participated actively for 83 days before exiting. He assured that core constitutional features would remain protected and vowed to submit the final report to the Council of Ministers on schedule.

RSP lawmaker Mohan Lal Acharya and law secretary Pushkar Sapkota echoed this, accusing critics of manufacturing a crisis and underscoring the process’s transparency, including reviews of past Constituent Assembly reports and feedback from over 44,700 citizens.

Historical Context and Broader Implications

Nepal’s 2015 Constitution, promulgated after years of deadlock in two Constituent Assemblies, marked a shift to federalism, republicanism, and greater inclusion following the Maoist insurgency and peace process. However, it has faced persistent criticism and limited amendments, particularly from Madhes-based parties demanding stronger proportional representation, citizenship reforms, and provincial adjustments.

The current crisis echoes past political turmoil, including frequent government changes and identity-based protests. The RSP’s reform agenda – including ideas like a directly elected executive, fully proportional representation, and restructuring provincial assemblies – appeals to younger voters seeking efficiency but alarms traditional parties protective of federal gains and inclusion frameworks.

Analysts warn that without broad consensus, attempts to amend the Constitution could exacerbate divisions in a country still healing from past conflicts and navigating economic challenges. The walkout risks deepening public disillusionment with politics and complicating governance under the new administration.

Prime Minister Balendra Shah’s government, bolstered by its electoral supermajority, faces the delicate task of balancing reformist promises with the need for stability. International partners, including the Asian Development Bank which recently pledged significant support, are watching closely as Nepal seeks to strengthen institutions and economic transformation.

Political Ramifications Ahead

The development comes amid ongoing debates on electoral systems, provincial structures, and governance mechanisms. Madhes parties, in particular, remain vigilant against any perceived rollback of federalism and inclusion.

As the taskforce proceeds without key stakeholders, calls are growing for an all-party meeting to rebuild trust. The episode underscores the enduring tension in Nepali politics between change and continuity, where the 2015 Constitution serves as both a unifying achievement and a battleground for competing visions.

With Parliament and public opinion in focus, the coming weeks will test whether Nepal’s political actors can bridge divides or if this latest impasse signals deeper instability in the federal republic’s young democratic journey.