The sanctity of the House of Representatives

Image:ChatGPT/Concept: LBThapa

 The sanctity of the House of Representatives

By LB Thapa

There’s a certain sense of respect and dignity inside the House of Representatives. How the House behaves matters—it shapes how the world sees Nepal’s democracy. It’s not just about fancy walls or a nice hall. This place is meant to be the heart of democracy, a mirror of the nation’s soul, where the hopes and fears of 30 million Nepalis—from the hills of Humla to the plains of Jhapa—are supposed to be heard. 

In the past, the House was known for its passionate but respectful debates. Leaders like B.P. Koirala and Ganesh Man Singh showed that even the Prime Minister had to listen to the Speaker’s gavel. Back then, words were the only weapons, and the enemy was an argument, not a person. 

An honorable Member of Parliament (MP) is expected to act in a way that respects this legacy. They’re not activists or street protesters inside the House. They’re lawmakers, trusted with people’s power. They have every right to disagree with the government, but they must follow the Parliamentary Conduct Rules (2079 BS). That means no placards, no shouting, and no actions that embarrass the institution. Their real job is to review bills, question ministers, and make laws for the future—not to bring street chaos inside. An MP who truly respects the House knows that disrupting it today only weakens the democratic practice in days to come. 

Sadly, the very dignity has been tested a lot lately by the Shram Sanskriti Party. Led by Harka Sampang (Harka Raj Rai), the party has turned the parliamentary House into a stage for constant protest. Frustrated by Prime Minister Balendra Shah’s frequent absences and the government’s failure to answer serious questions about inflation, unemployment, and border issues, Sampang’s team has protested by holding placards and shouting slogans. 

Their frustration might be understandable. Because the Rule 15 says ministers must reply to questions within seven days. But showing placards and interrupting sessions directly breaks Rule 30. This Rule directly bans “indecent behavior” that hurts the “dignity of the House.” What starts as justified anger often turns into mere noise, and barring even opposition members who want to speak properly. 

So what should an MP do if they feel ignored? In a parliamentary system, the answer is never chaos. If an MP thinks the government is breaking Rule 15, the proper step is to give a formal notice for an “Adjournment Motion” to discuss an urgent issue. Or they can file a “Zero Hour” notice to raise a matter without prior warning. If the Speaker doesn’t act, they can bring a motion against the Speaker or the minister, or raise a “Privilege Motion” before the Parliamentary Privileges Committee. These rules—laid out in the House of Representatives Regulations, 2075—exist to solve problems without breaking things. A wise MP uses these tools. Whereas an impatient MP throws them away. 

The Speaker Dol Prasad Aryal had to give Harka Sampang a formal warning because the law left him no choice. For weeks, the Speaker tried to calmly persuade Sampang to return to his seat and use the right channels. But by repeatedly displaying placards—sometimes several times in one session—the Shram Sanskriti Party crossed the line from legitimate protest to deliberate disorder. 

The Speaker is the guardian of the House. If he lets one member break Rule 30 without consequences, the whole rule book falls apart, and every other party will bring placards the next day. Aryal’s warning wasn’t about silencing dissent. It was about protecting the rules that make democracy work at all. It was a reluctant tap of the gavel, not an eager one. The warning has real consequences for Harka Sampang and his party. Under Rule 30 and related rules, this isn’t just a little fine or warning—it’s a legal trigger. 

First, the warning goes on the parliamentary record. If they ignore it and do it again, the Speaker can have them physically removed by the Marshal and security staff. Second, under proposed changes to the Parliamentary Conduct Rules, repeat offenders could be suspended for up to fifteen sitting days and fined for vandalism or deliberate obstruction. Third—and most seriously for a small party like Shram Sanskriti—repeated warnings could lead to the Ethics Committee recommending suspension for an entire session. If Sampang keeps defying the rules, he could lose the very platform he fought to enter. That would prove, once again, that in a democracy, rules are the only thing standing between order and irrelevance. For the dignity of the House to survive, even passionate rebels must learn to argue—not just shout and confront. 

WANT TO REPRODUCE THIS ARTICLE?

© 2026 READ 2B HAPPY. All rights reserved.

All text and images published on this blog (read2bhappy.blogspot.com) are the intellectual property of the blog owner unless otherwise stated. You are welcome to reproduce content for non-commercial, informational, or educational purposes only, provided you give appropriate credit by clearly stating the author's name and including a link back to the original post on this blog. I would appreciate a courtesy email notification at writerlbthapa@gmail.com when you share my work.