The Speaker of the House of Representatives is expected to run parliamentary proceedings impartially following democratic norms. In parliamentary tradition, after being elected, the Speaker dissociates himself or herself from the party that gave the election ticket to maintain neutrality.

Speakers in Nepal, however, have often run into controversies. They have also been accused of failing to maintain neutrality while conducting parliamentary business. At times, they are accused of working at the behest of the mother party.

The Speaker’s role becomes crucial in minimising inter-party rivalry that often leads to a political deadlock. Some Speakers such as Daman Nath Dhungana and Subas Nembang have successfully played that role as well.

The incumbent Speaker Devraj Ghimire also faces the charge of failing to demonstrate an impartial role.

On Saturday, Ghimire addressed a gathering organised by a provincial chapter of the Federation of Nepali Journalists where he said since Parliament had been held hostage, “some measures may need to be taken”. He went on to say that the government may be forced to introduce the fiscal budget through an ordinance should the House deadlock prolong.

His controversial statement came ahead of political leaders’ consultations on the day as they tried to find a way out of the impasse. Soon afterwards, Ghimire attended a meeting convened by Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal with CPN-UML chair KP Sharma Oli, and Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs Rabi Lamichhane, who is also the Rastriya Swatantra Party chief.

The opposition leaders have fiercely criticised the Speaker mainly after the May 16 incident when the Congress and the UML lawmakers had a scuffle during the House meeting. A UML lawmaker, Ghimire formally disassociated himself from the party after being elected the Speaker in early 2023.

Experts on parliamentary affairs say Speaker candidates must be picked carefully, analysing if they can do justice to the top position of the legislature. When the Speakers are selected on the basis of their relations with party leaders, they often take decisions to suit the leaders they are grateful to.

Speaker is a crucial constitutional position, former Speaker Daman Nath Dhungana told the Post. But political parties often give the post to someone from the party so as to satisfy their aspirations.

On May 15, UML chair Oli hinted that as Congress lawmakers had continuously been barring Home Minister Lamichhane from speaking in the House, the situation would be changed. Congress, the main opposition party, has been disrupting the House proceedings, demanding a parliamentary inquiry against Lamichhane in his alleged connections with cooperative funds embezzlement.

"It is unacceptable to us that only the Congress speaks in the meeting. Congress is not the only party in Parliament,” Oli said at the UML parliamentary party meeting on May 15. “Home Minister Lamichhane will speak at the parliament meeting tomorrow; if not, our party will speak.”

The next day, Speaker Ghimire allowed Home Minister Lamichhane to go to the rostrum and make his statement while Congress lawmakers were already chanting slogans. Then the situation turned tense and resulted in a scuffle.

Though Congress allowed President Ramchandra Paudel to present the government’s policies and programmes on May 14, it obstructed the motion to thank the head of state for the task, as per the parliamentary tradition.

After the May 16 incident, Congress General Secretary Gagan Thapa criticised Speaker Ghimire for his role in Parliament.

“Why did the Speaker take the House proceedings ahead forcefully when the main opposition was protesting?” Thapa said. “Whatever happened in the House is unfortunate, and the Speaker should bear the responsibility.”

However, former Speaker Taranath Ranabhat, also a former general secretary of the Congress, does not agree with Thapa. Speakers should not be held squarely responsible for their role in Parliament, said Ranabhat.

“Parliamentarians represent their parties, but the Speaker's role is like a referee,” Ranabhat told the Post. “When trying to bring everyone together, sometimes the Speaker might try to favour some parties to win their confidence which might be uncomfortable for others. However, the Speaker's role should not be questioned on that basis alone.”

Earlier, the roles played by former Speakers Agni Prasad Sapkota and Krishna Bahadur Mahara—both from the Maoist Centre—became controversial too.

Then-finance minister Janardan Sharma, a Maoist Centre leader, tabled the substitution bill related to budget ordinances in Parliament in September 2021, amid protests of the main opposition UML. Speaker Sapkota had allowed Sharma to table the bill amid obstruction from the UML.

The UML also accused Speaker Sapkota of aiding the party’s split. The UML at the time had urged the Speaker to sack 14 UML lawmakers, who defected to form the CPN (Unified Socialist) under Madhav Kumar Nepal. However, the Speaker refused to formalise the UML’s decision.

The UML persistently protested in Parliament demanding Sapkota’s resignation as Speaker.

In January 2019, Speaker Mahara was accused of siding with the ruling party during the passage of the National Medical Education Bill, even though the Congress had contested some of the bill's clauses. Additionally, he came under fire for not allowing Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba to voice his opinion in the House before inviting then-prime minister Oli to speak on the contentious Guthi Bill.

Ramchandra Paudel, a former Congress leader who became the Speaker after the 1996 midterm election, even faced impeachment for his role in Parliament. An impeachment motion was registered against him on September 23, 1998, for aiding the passage of a bill amid obstructions from the main opposition UML.

In principle, the Speaker shouldn’t carry forward the House business even if a single parliamentarian raises his hand, says Hari Bahadur Thapa, a senior journalist who has followed Parliament for more than two decades.

The Speaker has the right to marshal security personnel against a parliamentarian if they disrupt the House proceedings, but s/he cannot carry forward the House business when there is an obstruction, Thapa told the Post.