Young Leader, Old Politics: Balen Shah’s Leadership in Nepal Under Scrutiny

Nepal’s Young PM Balen Shah Faces Scrutiny as Old Political Practices Resurface

Twenty years after Nepal’s political leaders promised to establish democracy as a permanent pillar of governance following the removal of King Gyanendra, questions are emerging over whether the country’s current leadership is repeating the mistakes of the past. Prime Minister Balendra Shah’s limited engagement with Parliament and a controversial investigation involving former Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana have intensified concerns about democratic institutions and the separation of powers.

During his first six months in office, Shah reportedly attended Parliament only four times, spoke briefly on two occasions and once left the House while the President was still present at a joint session. He has also not met the President, according to the account.

These practices have drawn attention to the functioning of the legislature under Shah’s leadership. However, the previous governments led by the Maoists, Nepali Congress and Communist Party of Nepal (UML) were also accused of weakening parliamentary oversight and restricting lawmakers’ right to propose amendments, even during the constitution-drafting process.

Former Chief Justice Rana’s Arrest Raises Questions

On September 27, police arrested former Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana without a warrant. He was released around 12 hours later after a letter was obtained stating that he had requested police protection and had been kept at the station for his own safety.

Within days, Rana’s relatives and close associates reportedly came under surveillance and investigation over allegations ranging from attempts to influence pending judicial cases to conspiring with political figures to undermine the Shah government.

Home Minister Sudhan Gurung is personally supervising the investigation and surveillance. However, the government’s failure to inform Parliament about the alleged conspiracy has raised questions about transparency and the handling of a politically sensitive case.

Nepal’s polarised political climate has further complicated the situation. While Shah continues to enjoy strong public support, Rana has become a controversial figure in the unfolding dispute.

Political Tensions Could Widen the Investigation

Gurung’s warning that the misuse of information obtained through official positions would not be tolerated has added another dimension to the case. Although the government has disclosed limited details, the investigation could intersect with growing dissent within the ruling Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) and criticism from lawmakers aligned with party leader Rabi Lamichhane.

At the same time, UML chief and former prime minister K P Sharma Oli has called for the restoration of Parliament, which was dissolved on September 12 last year after he was forced to leave office amid the Gen Z anti-corruption protests.

The alleged conspiracy appears to have several political dimensions, with the government seemingly attempting to connect different developments. This has placed prominent figures, including Lamichhane, Oli and Maoist leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’, within the broader political discussion surrounding the investigation.

However, allegations of a conspiracy have not, by themselves, established the involvement of these leaders in any wrongdoing.

Two Decades of Strain on Judicial Independence

The tensions between Nepal’s political leadership and judiciary have deep roots. After the 2006 movement that ended King Gyanendra’s direct rule, the new government asked Supreme Court judges to take a fresh oath. Critics viewed the move as an attempt to secure their allegiance to the new administration.

The Maoists later proposed making the judiciary answerable to Parliament, but other major parties did not support the idea.

In 2013, Chief Justice Khil Raj Regmi became prime minister, heading an administration that included nominees from four major political parties. The arrangement raised concerns about the separation of powers and the potential impact of political involvement on judicial independence.

The appointment of retired Chief Justice Sushila Karki as prime minister last year further fuelled debate over constitutional safeguards separating judicial and political roles. Her appointment prompted questions about restrictions on judges assuming political or constitutional office after retirement.

Such developments have increasingly blurred the boundaries between the judiciary and political leadership, raising concerns about the independence of institutions that are expected to operate without political interference.

Can Balen Shah Break Away From the Old Political Order?

Shah’s party secured a landslide victory last year, an unusual outcome in Nepal’s fragmented political landscape. The result raised hopes that a strong electoral mandate could bring greater stability and a departure from established political practices.

Yet electoral success alone cannot guarantee democratic stability. Parliamentary accountability, respect for constitutional conventions, judicial independence and transparent investigations remain essential to effective governance.

Shah’s limited parliamentary engagement, combined with the controversy surrounding Rana and the investigation into an alleged conspiracy, has brought these issues back into focus.

The central question facing Nepal is whether its young prime minister will establish a different model of governance or reproduce the institutional practices that have drawn criticism of previous administrations. The country’s experience over the past two decades suggests that democratic progress depends not simply on a change of leadership, but on how those in power respect constitutional institutions and the limits of executive authority.