Laws · Analysis

Party mergers: the Political Party Act's merger section does not say whether the bars on registering a new party also apply; the Supreme Court has said they do

Unclear wordingHigher confidenceEnacted ActCourt interpretation

Section 10 of the Political Party Act 2073 lets two or more registered parties merge by agreement and apply to the Election Commission, which issues a certificate if the Act's procedures and conditions are met. Section 6(1) lists cases in which a party cannot be registered, including where its name or symbol matches that of a party already registered (s.6(1)(ङ)). Section 10 does not cross-refer to s.6. In a 2077 decision published in Nepal Kanoon Patrika, the Supreme Court held that a merger under s.10 cannot be registered in breach of s.6, and quashed a merger registration whose name matched an existing party. The Act's text has not been changed to reflect this.

Laws and sections involved

राजनीतिक दल सम्बन्धी ऐन, २०७३ · Political Party Act, 2073 s.6(1)(क)–(छ); s.10(1)–(9)
Our paraphrase: 'notwithstanding s.5', a party shall not be registered in listed cases, including where its name or symbol matches that of a party already registered with the Commission (s.6(1)(ङ)). Under s.10, registered parties may merge by agreement; the Commission examines the application and, 'if the procedure and conditions to be met under this Act and the rules made under it' are met, decides within 45 days and issues a certificate (s.10(4)); other matters are as prescribed (s.10(9)).
Law Commission consolidated text (authenticated 2073/12/27); amended by the First Amendment Act 2074 (2074/02/29), the Act Amending Some Nepal Acts 2075 (2075/11/19) and a 2077 Act replacing an ordinance (2077/03/15). ss.6 and 10 on PDF pp.5–8. An Ordinance amending the Act in 2078 is listed in the catalogue as repealed. Whether any later amendment changed s.10 is not confirmed. Official text
Headnotes (प्रकरण) 3–4 and operative paragraph 5
Our translation of the headnote: even when registered parties merge under s.10 to form a new party, it does not appear permissible to register the party in breach of the s.6 provisions on cases where a party cannot be registered; a decision under s.10 cannot breach s.6. The Court quashed the Commission's 2075 merger registration and its later decision upholding it as contrary to s.6(1)(ङ) and rule 9 of the Political Party Regulation 2074, and directed the Commission to decide any fresh merger application in line with the Act and rules.
Order of 2077/11/23 by a two-judge joint bench; full text published on the Nepal Kanoon Patrika site. Whether it was reviewed or followed in later decisions is not confirmed. Official text

The apparent issue

Section 10 is silent on whether the s.6 bars apply to a party formed by merger. Before the Supreme Court's 2077 order, the Election Commission had read s.10 as satisfied and had found no name clash; the Court read the two sections together and reached the opposite result. The court's reading now guides practice, but the Act itself still does not say which s.6 grounds apply to mergers (for example name and symbol only, or also the grounds on constitution, membership and objectives), and the Court's order addressed the name ground on the facts of one case.

Evidence

The Supreme Court held that registering a party formed by merger under s.10 in breach of s.6 is not permissible, quashed the Election Commission's merger registration decision of 2075/02/23 and its decision of 2075/07/09 rejecting a complaint against it as contrary to s.6(1)(ङ) and rule 9 of the Political Party Regulation 2074, and ordered that the two merging parties remain as separately registered, with any fresh merger to be decided in line with the Act and rules. Supreme Court of Nepal Headnotes 3–4; order para 5
Before the order, the Election Commission had found the merger lawful under s.10 and the names different for the purposes of s.6(1)(ङ), as recorded in the facts section of the decision; the bench reached a different reading of the same provisions. Supreme Court of Nepal Facts section (तथ्य खण्ड)
Sections 6 and 10 were read in the Law Commission's consolidated text; s.10 contains no cross-reference to s.6. Nepal Law Commission PDF pp.5–8

Possible readings

Reading 1 (the Supreme Court's reading): a merger creates a party that must be registered, so every s.6 bar applies through the words 'procedure and conditions to be met under this Act' in s.10(4).
Reading 2 (the view the Election Commission took before the order): s.10 is a self-contained route for already-registered parties, whose merged entity inherits their registration; s.6 governs new applications under s.5, and the name question should be judged on whether the full names differ.
Reading 3: the s.6 grounds about the party's name and symbol apply to mergers, but grounds that concern the founding application (for example documents under s.5(3)) may not fit a merger; which grounds apply is left open.

Why it matters in practice

Because merger registrations affect who holds parliamentary seats, party funds and election symbols, uncertainty about which rules apply can lead to litigation years after a merger, as happened here, with large political and administrative consequences. Codifying the rule would reduce this risk.

Hypothetical example

Hypothetical: two registered parties merge under a new name that is very close to that of a small third party registered years earlier. The Commission must decide whether s.6(1)(ङ) applies and how close is 'matching'. Under the Supreme Court's reading it must refuse if the names match; the Act itself gives no test.

Possible improvements and trade-offs

Amend s.10 to state expressly which s.6 grounds apply to mergers, codifying the Supreme Court's holding.
Certainty for parties and the Commission; requires a political choice about which grounds to include.
Add a test in the Act or rules for when names or symbols 'match' (for example including abbreviations and names in brackets).
Addresses the point that was disputed; any test will need judgement in borderline cases.
Leave the text and rely on the Supreme Court's precedent.
No legislative cost; the precedent is from a two-judge bench on one ground and may be distinguished in later cases.

Questions for legal review

Which of the s.6(1) grounds apply to a merger under s.10 after the Supreme Court's 2077 order, and is the order binding precedent under Article 128(4) of the Constitution?
Do the Political Party Regulation 2074 (rule 9) or Election Commission directives already set a test for matching names?

Research status

Researched: 2026-10-12
Confidence: Higher confidence — The statutory text was read and the Supreme Court's published order directly addresses the relationship between ss.6 and 10. What remains open is how far the holding extends, not whether the text was unclear.
Review: Not yet reviewed by a qualified lawyer.

Still unresolved

Rule 9 of the Political Party Regulation 2074 was not opened.
Whether the Election Commission has issued guidance on mergers after the order, or proposed amendments, was not checked in its annual report.
Whether the order was reviewed or followed in later decisions was not searched.