Legislating Immunity: A Dangerous Turn in Governance

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.