Khil Raj Regmi: Nepal’s Constitution Should Be Amended, Not Rewritten

Former Chief Justice and former Chairman of the Council of Ministers Khil Raj Regmi has delivered a clear message to Nepal’s constitutional task force: protect the Constitution’s core structure before attempting any amendment.

Speaking with the team led by Prime Minister Balendra Shah’s political advisor Asim Shah, Regmi argued that the Constitution’s preamble and basic essence should remain intact, even if reforms are introduced elsewhere. He warned against treating amendment as an opportunity to disrupt the document’s foundation.

What Regmi is pushing for

Regmi’s central point is that Nepal should prioritize governance stability and institutional balance over a sudden shift to a presidential system. Instead of rushing toward a new model of executive power, he suggested that any change should be carefully weighed against long-term constitutional continuity.

He also proposed a separate mechanism for action against judges, implying that judicial accountability should be handled through a dedicated process rather than folded into broader political restructuring.

Why the warning matters

Regmi’s comments carry extra weight because of his own place in Nepal’s constitutional history. He previously served as Chief Justice and later headed the Council of Ministers during a politically sensitive transition period, giving him firsthand experience with the tension between institutional stability and political reform.

His position also reflects a broader constitutional caution: amendments can strengthen a system, but repeated or sweeping changes can weaken the legitimacy and coherence of the original framework.

Religious provisions stay off the table

Another key part of Regmi’s advice was to avoid altering religious matters inside the Constitution. That recommendation suggests he sees some parts of the document as too foundational or sensitive to become bargaining chips in broader political negotiations.

For a country where constitutional design often intersects with identity, state structure, and public trust, that restraint may be as significant as any proposed reform.

The bigger political question

At the heart of the discussion is a familiar constitutional dilemma: how far can a nation go in reforming its system without breaking the principles that hold it together? Regmi’s answer is straightforward. Change is possible, but the Constitution’s core should not be disrupted under any circumstances.

That stance positions him as a voice for caution at a moment when Nepal’s political debate appears to be weighing structural change against institutional continuity.