Nepal’s Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered authorities not to implement two newly adopted provisions of the House of Representatives Rules 2026, temporarily blocking a rule that could have eased the constitutional amendment process and another that sought to give lawmakers special status under existing law.

A five-member constitutional bench led by Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma issued the interim order, keeping Rule 140(11) and Rule 259 in abeyance until further orders.

The rules were passed on May 31 with the backing of the Rastriya Swatantra Party, which holds a near two-thirds majority in the House. Opposition parties protested during their passage, arguing that some provisions conflicted with the constitution and existing laws.

The top court’s order has revived questions about the limits of Parliament’s rule-making powers, the constitutional process for amending the charter and the privileges of lawmakers.

So what exactly has the court ordered, why were the provisions ‘disputed ’, and what happens next? Here are five questions and answers.

What exactly has the Supreme Court ordered?

A five-member constitutional bench led by Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma ordered that Rule 140(11) and Rule 259 of the House of Representatives Rules 2026 be kept in abeyance, preventing their implementation until further orders.

In simple terms, the two provisions cannot be enforced until the court delivers its final verdict on the case.

The order is interim, meaning the court has not yet made a final determination on whether the provisions are constitutional. It has, however, stopped their implementation for now.

The court said the provisions appeared, at first sight, to be inconsistent with the constitution. It has not struck down the House rules as a whole, but has temporarily suspended the two provisions.

Why were the two rules ‘disputed’?

One provision sought to change how constitutional amendments could be approved, while the other attempted to give the House rules the status of special legislation.

The constitution gives each chamber of the Federal Parliament the power to make rules governing its own proceedings. The question before the Supreme Court was how far that power extends and whether parliamentary rules can override procedures and legal provisions set out elsewhere in the constitution and law.

The RSP has a near two-thirds majority in the House but has no representation in the National Assembly. Under the constitution, a constitutional amendment requires the support of at least two-thirds of the total number of members currently in each chamber of the Federal Parliament.

That means a party with enough seats in the House of Representatives cannot amend the constitution on its own if it lacks the required support in the National Assembly.

The House rule sought to change that by allowing the votes from both chambers to be combined when calculating the two-thirds threshold.

Kamala Devi Panta, Nepali Congress National Assembly parliamentary party leader, and others challenged the provision in the Supreme Court, arguing that it was contrary to the constitutional framework.

How would Rule 140(11) have made constitutional amendments easier?

Rule 140(11) provided that a constitutional amendment bill could move forward if the combined votes of the House of Representatives and National Assembly amounted to a two-thirds majority.

Article 274 of the constitution, however, requires a constitutional amendment bill to be passed by at least two-thirds of the total number of members currently in each chamber of the Federal Parliament.

In practical terms, this means each chamber must separately meet the two-thirds threshold.

The House rule instead allowed the votes of both chambers to be added together when calculating the required majority.

For example, if a party had more than two-thirds of the seats in the House of Representatives but no representation in the National Assembly, the additional votes in the House could make up for the shortfall in the National Assembly under the new rule. That would create a route for an amendment to advance even if it failed to secure a two-thirds majority in one of the chambers.

Rule 140(11) stated that once a constitutional amendment bill passed by the House was sent to the National Assembly, the Speaker could authenticate it and send it to the President if the combined votes in the two chambers amounted to at least two-thirds of their total current membership.

Constitutional experts argued that this weakened the constitutional requirement that a constitutional amendment must secure a separate two-thirds majority in both chambers.

How could Rule 259 have put lawmakers above existing law?

Rule 259 stated that, notwithstanding anything contained in existing law, the House rules would apply to the House, its committees and its members as federal law and as special legislation.

In effect, the provision sought to give the House rules a status beyond that of ordinary internal parliamentary procedure.

The petitioners argued that such a provision could create a situation in which lawmakers were treated differently from other citizens under existing laws. They particularly raised concerns about how it could affect lawmakers facing corruption, money-laundering or other criminal charges.

The constitution grants lawmakers certain limited privileges. But those privileges do not amount to blanket immunity from criminal law or other laws in force.

Constitutional expert Bipin Adhikari told Kantipur that Parliament can enact special laws, but such laws must remain subordinate to the constitution. Parliamentary rules are intended to regulate the legislature’s internal proceedings, not to override existing laws.

Adhikari said the court’s intervention was necessary because the new provision sought to give parliamentary rules the status of special legislation.

On what constitutional grounds did the Supreme Court suspend the provisions?

The apex court relied primarily on several constitutional provisions in issuing its interim order.

First, Article 104(1) gives each chamber of the Federal Parliament the power to make rules governing its proceedings, the orderly conduct of its meetings, the formation of committees and other procedural matters. The issue before the court is whether that power can be used to alter the constitutional process for amending the constitution or to override existing laws.

Second, Article 83 clearly establishes that the Federal Parliament consists of two chambers. The court has indicated that the separate existence and powers of the House of Representatives and National Assembly cannot be weakened through parliamentary rules.

Third, Article 111(9) sets out the circumstances in which a joint sitting of the Federal Parliament may be held. The constitution does not envisage a joint sitting for constitutional amendment bills. The court also noted that Rule 140(11) of the House rules appeared to conflict with Rule 129 of the National Assembly Rules, 2018.

Article 1 of the constitution also establishes the constitution as the fundamental law of Nepal and provides that any law inconsistent with it is void to the extent of that inconsistency.

For now, therefore, the constitutional requirement that a constitutional amendment secure a separate two-thirds majority in both the House of Representatives and National Assembly remains in force. The provision that sought to give the House rules the status of special legislation, potentially placing lawmakers in a different position from other citizens under existing law, is also suspended.

But the court has not issued its final ruling. It will decide whether the provisions should remain in force or be struck down after hearing arguments from the petitioners and the opposing parties.