Lawmakers have demanded the removal of a provision in the Mediation Bill, 2083, that allows the Chief Justice to assign district judges as mediators, arguing it violates Article 150 of the constitution. The demand was made during a theoretical discussion on the bill at a meeting of the House of Representatives’ Law, Justice and Human Rights Committee on Monday, October 5, 2026.
Article 150 of the constitution states that district judges should not be assigned to other duties. Lawmakers stressed that provisions conflicting with the constitution should not be included in the bill.
Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Sobita Gautam defended the proposed provision, stating that mediation is a judicial function, justifying the role for district judges. She also informed the committee that the bill proposes allowing individuals who have passed the Secondary Education Examination (SEE) to serve as mediators in remote wards where university graduates are unavailable.
MPs Madhukumar Chaulagain, Manish Khanal, Sulabh Kharel, and Sajida Khatun Siddiki were among those who argued against assigning district judges the role of mediators due to constitutional concerns.
Concerns over flood victims and squatters
During the same meeting, other lawmakers, including Smriti Chaudhary, Balawati Sharma, Prakash Chandra Pariyar, Apsana Banu, Khima BK, and Saraswati Lama, raised concerns about the unresolved issues faced by flood victims in the Bhote Koshi region. They called for immediate management and relief efforts.
They highlighted that road networks in Gosainkunda, Amachhoing, and Uttargaya rural municipalities in Rasuwa district have been disrupted, making it impossible to transport essential supplies like salt. Local produce, such as vegetables, is also rotting due to lack of market access. The lawmakers urged the government to restore road connectivity immediately and address the victims’ problems.
Additionally, MPs expressed alarm over the dire conditions of holding centers for squatters relocated from Kathmandu’s riverbanks. They pressed the government, led by Prime Minister Balen Shah, to ensure proper management of these centers before Dashain, a major Nepali festival.
Background and next steps
The Mediation (Second Amendment) Bill, 2083, was registered in the House of Representatives by Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Sobita Gautam on July 30, 2026. The bill aims to amend Nepal’s Mediation Act, 2068, to align it with the federal structure and expand mediation services to provincial and local levels. By September 29, 2026, 66 amendment proposals had been registered by 12 groups of lawmakers. Minister Gautam proposed sending the bill for clause-by-clause discussion to the relevant committee on September 30, 2026.
The government announced a special relief package for Bhote Koshi flood victims on September 13, 2026, including a monthly housing allowance of Rs 15,000 until permanent homes are built. Search, recovery, and rehabilitation efforts have been underway in the affected areas since October 1, 2026. As of September 1, 2026, 4,606 people remained missing due to the Bhote Koshi floods.
The campaign to remove squatter settlements from Kathmandu’s riverbanks began on May 1, 2026, coordinated by Kathmandu Metropolitan City and the Kathmandu District Administration Office. This followed a Supreme Court, Nepal’s apex court, ruling on December 19, 2023, with the full text released on July 17, 2026, ordering the relocation of genuine squatters and the clearing of government land along riverbanks.
The Mediation Bill will now proceed to clause-by-clause discussion within the parliamentary committee, where the 66 amendment proposals will be debated. For Bhote Koshi flood victims, the focus will be on continued search, recovery, and rehabilitation, alongside the provision of monthly housing expenses. For Kathmandu’s squatters, the government has committed to identifying genuine squatters and ensuring their safe and sustainable relocation, potentially to housing built in Ichangunarayana or other arrangements, as per the Supreme Court’s directive.
