The government’s decision to exclude current ministers and members of Parliament from the jurisdiction of the asset investigation commission in the updated House Rules of Procedures passed recently by the House of Representatives exposes a troubling pattern: when law is reshaped to protect those in power, justice itself is put under strain. Both decisions risk undermining democracy rather than strengthening it. Exempting sitting ministers and newly elected lawmakers from asset scrutiny, while pushing through parliamentary provisions that elevate MPs above ordinary citizens, signals a dangerous shift—from the rule of law to the selective use of law. No democracy can survive when law is deployed as a shield for the powerful rather than a safeguard for justice. Labeling such rules as “special law” does not strengthen democracy; it distorts it. It replaces constitutional equality with institutional privilege. This is not the rule of law—it is rule by legal engineering. The intent appears less about governance reform and more about insulating political actors from scrutiny, especially in light of past cases where accountability mechanisms have triggered consequences for public officials. In this context, reports that the National Human Rights Commission has recommended further investigation into several leaders of the ruling Rastriya Swatantra Party, including its chairperson, have intensified public scrutiny of the new parliamentary provisions. The concern is no longer procedural—it is principled: whether law is being quietly redesigned to exempt the powerful from its reach. Yet Article 18 of Nepal’s Constitution is unambiguous—all citizens are equal before the law.
ICC T20 World Cup: England set Nepal a challenging 185-run targ...
Questions have also been raised about the declared assets of several members of the new government, with inconsistencies between reported wealth, age, and professional history. Meanwhile, investigations into former Home Minister Sudhan Gurung have already begun, reinforcing the need for consistent and impartial scrutiny rather than selective exemption. When the government previously initiated asset investigations for all officeholders since 2006, it projected a strong message of zero tolerance for corruption. The reversal of that principle now raises a deeper concern: whether accountability is being selectively applied, and whether a legal framework is being shaped to protect a new privileged class. The ruling party’s repeated invocation of “good governance” increasingly contrasts with its defensive legal posture. Public rhetoric on transparency and accountability now appears increasingly inconsistent with institutional decisions that weaken scrutiny. The most troubling element is not only what the law says, but how it is being used. When procedural provisions allow suspension, reinterpretation, or selective application of rules in the name of convenience, law becomes flexible enough to serve power rather than constrain it. That is precisely when justice begins to lose its anchor.
Law exists to uphold justice—not to be held hostage by those who administer it. When legal instruments are redesigned to protect authority instead of ensuring accountability, democracy is not strengthened; it is quietly weakened. Those who come to power through democratic means are not automatically custodians of democratic values. Without restraint and commitment to equality before the law, elected power can easily drift toward selective privilege. The promise of reform is not enough; it must be matched by consistent practice. It is still possible to correct the course. The credibility of any governing force depends not on how cleverly it designs legal protections, but on how faithfully it upholds equality under law. Instead of constructing legal escape routes, the priority should be restoring public trust through transparency and uniform accountability. At a minimum, asset investigations must apply equally to all officeholders—past and present. Anything less risks confirming a growing perception: that justice is being negotiated, not delivered.
