Heena Prawin
Law graduate, Section officer
Nepal is witnessing a political storm. In September 2025, Generation Z—the country’s young, tech-savvy population—flooded streets and social media in protest against the government’s sudden ban on social media platforms. But the protests were more than just a reaction to the ban. They were the culmination of years of frustration over corruption, political stagnation, and repeated failures of successive governments.
The protests reached a tipping point when Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli resigned, leaving a sudden political vacuum. In response, political parties proposed appointing former Chief Justice Sushila Karki as interim Prime Minister for limited period—a bold move that has sparked intense debate over legality, precedent, and political necessity.
A Constitutional Conundrum
Nepal’s Constitution of 2015 is clear: Article 76 requires the Prime Minister to be a member of the House of Representatives, and Article 118 prohibits judges from holding other offices of profit. By these rules, Karki—though highly respected—does not qualify. Constitutionally, appointing her would be invalid.
Yet Nepal’s history shows that legality can sometimes be temporarily bent in extraordinary circumstances, guided by the principle of necessity—the idea that, in exceptional crises, certain legal norms may be set aside to preserve the continuity of the state and protect democratic governance.
Learning from History: The Regmi Precedent
In 2012, political deadlock left Nepal without a functioning government. The Constituent Assembly had dissolved, and parties could not agree on a Prime Minister. The solution? Chief Justice Khil Raj Regmi was appointed interim Prime Minister. Legally, it violated the separation of powers and judicial independence. Practically, it preserved the state’s continuity and allowed elections to proceed.
The Regmi episode demonstrates that in moments of acute crisis, the principle of necessity can justify temporary deviations from strict constitutional formalism. Similarly, Karki’s proposed appointment could be seen as a pragmatic solution, but one that must be strictly limited to six months, focused solely on stabilizing governance and organizing elections.
Legal Theory Meets Political Reality
Hans Kelsen’s Grundnorm theory explains why this matters. According to Kelsen, the validity of a legal system rests on a fundamental presupposition—here, that the Constitution must be obeyed. Legally, appointing Karki violates this principle. Politically, however, temporary measures rooted in the principle of necessity can be tolerated during periods of deadlock or instability, provided they are strictly limited in scope and duration.
Global Comparisons
Nepal is not alone in balancing legality with political necessity. In Italy, economist Mario Monti became Prime Minister in 2011 despite not being an elected MP, steering the country through a financial crisis. In Pakistan, Moeen Qureshi, a civil servant, served as caretaker Prime Minister in 1993 to ensure smooth elections. Pakistan, 1993: Moeen Qureshi: Civil servant appointed caretaker Prime Minister before national elections, permitted by constitutional provisions for interim governments (Pakistan Government Archives, 1993). These examples show that democracies, in exceptional circumstances, sometimes appoint non-elected leaders to maintain stability—but such appointments are always temporary.
The Role of Gen Z
What makes the current moment unique is the pressure from Nepal’s youth. The Gen Z protests demand an end to entrenched corruption and the rise of fresh leadership. Any interim Prime Minister now carries the dual burden of stabilizing governance and responding to these social demands.
Looking Ahead
If appointed, Sushila Karki’s tenure must be strictly temporary—limited to a short, critical period. Her role should focus exclusively on restoring democratic governance, conducting elections, and ensuring that constitutional order is ultimately respected. While the legality of her appointment is questionable, political necessity and public expectation may converge to justify it—if only for this short, critical period.
Nepal stands at a crossroads. How the nation navigates the tension between legal formalism and political pragmatism will define its democratic trajectory—and the legacy of a generation determined to shape it.
