It was obvious that president Bidhya Devi Bhandari would not give her consent to the controversial Citizenship Bill, resent by the House of Representatives (HoR) 15 days ago, after the federal parliament refused to consider her nine-point concerns regarding the bill, which was passed by both the HoR and National Assembly as it was.
As per the constitutional provision, the president has no option other than to endorse the bill after it is resent by the HoR with or without any changes on it. The constitution is also silence about the next course when the head of state refuses to give his or her consent to a bill resent by the House. As the five-year tenure of the HoR came to an end on September 17, the government can move the Supreme Court challenging the President's move.
The Citizenship Bill cannot turn into law unless it is authenticated by the president. This has created a constitutional crisis and led to a tug-of-war between the government and the president. With the president refusing to sign the bill, more than half-a-million people born to the citizens by birth and single mothers would be deprived of obtaining citizenship certificates, without which they will not be able to apply for jobs and pursue higher studies.
While resenting the bill to the HoR for its reconsideration on August 14, the president had raised concerns, particularly about the dignity of single mothers, citizenship with provincial identity and provisions related to matrimonial naturalisation. The President had also asked the parliament to settle the citizenship issue by revisiting citizenship policies in the historical perspective by thoroughly analysing polices post- 1952 and find permanent solution to issues related to citizenship. The president had also asked the parliament to find a durable solution to question regarding the matrimonial naturalisation, keeping in mind the best practices across the globe and suitability of the provision in Nepal's contexts.
The problem would not have arisen had the government accepted the report prepared by the parliamentary State Affairs and Good Governance Committee, which had proposed a seven-year wait for a foreign woman married to Nepali citizen to obtain the matrimonial naturalisation. Instead of discussing the report in HoR, the government withdrew it and replaced it with a new one, omitting the seven-year provision for the matrimonial naturalisation. The government also did not include the provision of citizenship paper with provincial identity as required by the constitution. In this case, the president has crossed her constitutional limits by not endorsing the bill resent by the HoR, while the ruling coalition also ignored the genuine concerns raised earlier by the president.
As the citizenship bill was a highly sensitive issue, the major political parties in both the aisles should have held extensive discussion and reached a consensus on it before endorsing it through a majority vote.
As the president has shelved the bill, and the HoR's tenure already ended, one option left for the government is to move the Supreme Court seeking its mandamus order to the president to sign the resent bill. As there no other options, the government must wait until the next HoR convenes after the November 20 parliamentary elections.
"The problem would not have arisen had the govt sought consensus among political parties on the bill"
