Members of the Youth Federation Nepal, the youth wing of the opposition CPN-UML (Communist Party of Nepal- Unified Marxist Leninist), staged a protest in Kathmandu on Wednesday, burning effigies of President and Prime Minister.
The protest was in opposition to the recent ratification of the Citizenship Amendment Bill. As President Paudel authenticated the bill earlier that day, the youth union marched towards the Parliament, demanding the resignation of the President and Prime Minister. This article examines the events and controversies surrounding the bill.
President Paudel ratifies bill but opposing views persist
President Ram Chandra Paudel authenticated the Citizenship Amendment Bill on Wednesday morning, citing Articles 61 (2) (3) (4) and Article 66 of the Constitution of Nepal. The bill’s ratification came after the government’s request following a Cabinet meeting on May 26. This request was made to President Paudel, as former President Bidya Devi Bhandari had repeatedly refused to endorse the bill.
A case challenging Bhandari’s refusal to authenticate the bill, which had been sent to her twice by the federal parliament, is currently sub-judice at the Supreme Court. According to Article 113 (3) of the Constitution, the president can send a bill back for reconsideration once, but Article 113 (4) mandates authentication if it is presented again for the second time after being passed by both Houses of Parliament.
Controversies surrounding the bill’s provisions
One of the main points of contention revolves around the bill’s silence regarding the provision of naturalized citizenship through marriage, as stated in Article 11 (6) of the Constitution. President Bhandari, while refusing to authenticate the bill, emphasized that the Constitution specifies “federal law” as the requirement for naturalized citizenship through marriage, which was missing from the bill passed by the federal parliament. Another issue raised by Bhandari was the provision requiring self-declaration by a woman to provide citizenship to her children. These concerns were among the reasons for Bhandari’s decision to return the Citizenship Bill to the federal parliament for further deliberation.
Bill’s impact and addressing stateless individuals
The passed bill has significant implications, as it paves the way for granting citizenship to approximately 400,000 people who have been deprived of their constitutional rights and have remained stateless in Nepal. The bill includes provisions for granting citizenship by descent to the children of those who received citizenship by birth through a one-time arrangement after the People’s Movement II in 2006. It also allows citizenship to be acquired solely through the name of the mother, with specific conditions such as the child being born in Nepal, residing in Nepal, and the father being unidentified. Additionally, the bill permits non-resident citizenship to individuals living outside SAARC countries if they can provide proof of their Nepali lineage.
The ratification of the Citizenship Amendment Bill in Nepal has ignited widespread protests and dissatisfaction among the youth union of the opposition CPN-UML. Through their demonstration, which included burning effigies and calls for the President and Prime Minister to step down, they are voicing their apprehensions regarding the bill’s effects on constitutional rights and the issue of statelessness. The government’s intent behind passing the bill is to alleviate the plight of numerous individuals who have been denied citizenship.
Nonetheless, the bill’s provisions remain highly controversial, prompting ongoing debates and close scrutiny across the nation. The youth union’s strong opposition reflects the broader concerns surrounding the bill and the implications it may have on the fundamental rights of Nepali citizens. As the bill takes effect, it becomes crucial to navigate the complexities and address any potential challenges arising from its implementation. The situation calls for open dialogue and a thorough examination of the bill’s provisions to ensure that it upholds constitutional principles and effectively addresses the longstanding issue of statelessness.