The main objective of legislative scrutiny is an evaluation of the law made by parliament. The paper intends to identify the importance of the core topic and questions to be addressed. For this purpose, the paper will find the current status of the legislative scrutiny briefly around the world and specifically in Nepal. The paper tries to find the subject on how legislative scrutiny has been carried out in the field through secondary sources, using websites and available literature and obtaining some empirical evidences from the parliament. The paper will try to conclude why legislative scrutiny is needed and what impact it will have in legal and political sector.

Keywords:legislative scrutiny, parliament, politics

I. BACKGROUND

Parliament is the state's legislative body. Law making and Post - legislative scrutiny are the main tasks of the legislative body. Laws are made to be implemented and effective implementation of the law is one of the major challenges faced not only in Nepal but in most countries in Asia. Law making process is easier compared to implementing the same law. Legislative work and effective law enforcement is state's both legal and political task.Political plans are also implemented through legislation. Government performances will bemeasured through effective law enforcement that can be judged through post - legislative scrutiny.

UK is known to be a country with systematic and advanced legislative scrutiny till date. The Committee of Public Accounts of the United Kingdom initially performed this task but later handed over to the Committee of Public Audit and Legislative Scrutiny. Belgium has an ex-post evaluation parliamentary committee of laws doing this business. Canadian parliament deals with sunset clause laws. Indonesian experience is quite interesting, with 17 law analysts setting up a separate committee outside the parliament. For the purposes of scrutiny, Switzerland has a separate committee called Parliamentary Control of Administration [PCA]. (Devkota, September 2018).

The region of South Asia has different political systems. Nepal and India have similar political system. India's experience in the parliamentary system is long and deep, whereas Nepal has very short experience. Nepal and India have both adopted parliamentary and constitutional systems through constituent assemblies. India is regarded as the largest democratic country, whereas Nepal has very little experience but has restored the parliamentary system over and over again. Nepal is a federal democratic republican country with parliamentary system. The impact of parliamentary practices is limited despite having substantial history of parliamentary practice in Nepal. The country in the recent past has gone through a decade long conflict. It is a positive sign that Nepal is in the phase of completing the transition. The country has an extraordinary history of producing seven constitutions in only seven decades. The current constitution of the constituent assembly elected by the people is the seventh constitution that now governs the country. Nepal, through a new constitution promulgated in 2015, has adopted a reformed parliamentary system. Nepal is a country that has been continuously trying to reform and improve the parliamentary system to align with the aspirations of the general people. With this spirit, I would like to explain parliamentary functions based on the new constitution's reformed parliamentary practices. Lawmaking is the parliament's main business. Oversight function of the Parliament and deliberation of the voice of the people in the parliament are distinct and regularly practiced function of the parliament. Legislative scrutiny is a new affair for Nepal, although the country's initiative is praise worthy. With a few examples, I would like to introduce the country's initiative on legislative scrutiny. This study was carried out on the basis of legal arrangements and their practices. I would like to share some of the impacts of the law-making process in Nepal.

II DEFINITION OF LEGISLATIVE SCRUTINY :

Parliamentary scrutiny is the close examination and investigation of government policies, actions and spending that is carried out by the House of Commons and the House of Lords and their committees.[1] Pre-legislative scrutiny is the detailed examination of an early draft of a Bill that is done by a parliamentary select committee before the final version is drawn up by the Government.[2] Post-legislative scrutiny is an inquiry by a parliamentary select committee into how a new law has worked in practice since it came into force.[3] Law commission of UK has defined post-legislative scrutiny as following,

“Post-legislative scrutiny is a broad and undefined expression, which means different things to different people. This statement is certainly borne out by the responses we have received. The best approach to defining post-legislative scrutiny is to consider what its purposes and benefits should be……….”(UK_Post_Legislative_Scrutiny_2006)

Since the central argumentation of this study revolves around the term parliamentary scrutiny, it seems appropriate to provide a definition thereof. According to Ronald Holzhacker, parliamentary scrutiny can be defined as the exercise of power by the legislative branch to control, influence, or monitor government decision-making.

The publication of Westminster Foundation for Democracy on Legislative Scrutiny, Overview of Legislative Scrutiny, practiced in the UK, India, Indonesia and France has been drafted by Franklin De Vrieze, on behalf of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD), and defines Legislative Scrutiny as following,

“One of the main tasks of parliament in a democratic system of governance is to consider debate, review and adopt legislation. No matter how or by whom a draft law1 is developed, parliament’s job is to review the draft law prior to deciding whether or not to adopt the law, with or without amendments.(Vrieze, Legislative Scrutiny UK,India,Indonesia and France, 2018)

According to the working procedure on legislative Scrutiny 2018 of legislative management committee, National Assembly of Nepal has defined the legal scrutiny as following;[4]

“The method of study, investigation and audit of implementation of any act, clause sub-clause any parts, of federal laws its positive and negative impact on concern stakeholders is called legal audit.”

Again Franklin De Vrieze writes in Post-legislative Scrutiny Guide for Parliaments;

‘One of the main roles of parliament is to create laws that meet the needs of the country’s citizens. It is also a parliament’s role to evaluate whether the laws it has passed achieve their intended outcome(s). Post- Legislative Scrutiny refers to the stage at which a parliament applies itself to this question: whether the laws of a country are producing expected outcomes, to what extent, and if not, why not.”(Vrieze, Post-legislative Scrutiny Guid for parliaments, 2017).

On the basis of the above definition, we can simply define that the term scrutiny is a legislative review. The stages of legislative scrutiny can be categorized into three phase namely Pre-legislative scrutiny, during legislative scrutiny and post-legislative scrutiny.

III NEPAL'S CONTEXT:

Nepal is a country of Lord Buddha, a symbol of peace; Mount Everest, a symbol of height and Gorkha, a symbol of warrior. Nepal can also be known as a country with a lot of parliamentary reforms. Reform is an inevitable process and major reforms and progressive changes have taken place even in political system. Nepal's current constitution has been reformed in traditional parliamentary practices within parliamentary system reform. During the constitution making process, political stability was the country's demand, but the then parliamentary system and practices could not guarantee that. Therefore, parties were considering changing the system. There was also a huge debate and initiative to change the system from parliamentary system to direct elected presidential system. However, all political parties finally agreed on reforming the major provisions in the constitution that will create a possibility of political stability. Therefore, in constitution, the parliamentary system continued. The task of the legislature has not changed in this continuation of the parliamentary system. Legislative body makes the law, but making a law alone does not fulfill the legislature's duty. Legislative body must ensure that the parliamentary law is well enforced. Parliament's role on the drafting, finalizing and implementing the law is positive. But there are expectations and concerns on whether the objective of the law is achieved or not and also whether the law has created a positive impact or not. These expectations will only be met after the scrutiny process. Pre, during and post-legislative scrutiny is therefore the parliament's most important part.

IV LEGAL INSTRUMENTS:

There are a number of instruments to implement the law. The Constitution of Nepal, the National Assembly Regulations and the Working Procedure of the National Assembly Legislative Management Committee are the main legal instruments. All the legal instruments refer more or less to content and process Legislative Scrutiny.

1 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION

As per the constitution of Nepal there is a federal parliament provision In Chapter 8 and formation of parliament by mixed electoral system and nominee from the head of state in Article 83. Article 97 has provision of different committees. There is also a provision of Joint Committee to resolve the business of both Houses. In addition to that the constitution also has a separate procedure to conduct parliamentary affairs. The Constitution states as follows:[5]

“Procedures relating to conduct of business:

(1) Each House of the Federal Parliament shall frame rules to conduct its business, maintain order during its meetings and regulate the Constitution, functions and procedures of the committees and procedures of the House or its committee. Until such rules are framed, the Federal Parliament shall regulate its procedures on its own.

(2) The conduct of business of the joint sitting of the Federal Parliament, and constitution and proceedings of the joint committee of the Federal Parliament shall be regulated by the rules or procedures approved by the joint sitting of both Houses of the Federal Parliament.” (The Constitution of Nepal 2015)

The executive body must be controlled by different means by the parliament in the context of the limited government such as by asking questions, seeking clarifications in various issues including plans, programs and annual budget. Parliament monitors the executive by discussing various proposals in the house and issuing various directives. Constitutional obligation of the parliament is also to have democratic control on the executive body and ensure concerns of the general public.

2 Bylaws of Parliament

Most of the parliament's functions are mentioned in the Constitution. The Constitution has given Parliament a mandate to make rules for the parliament to function. Parliament can make the rules of procedure which is called "Bylaws." Bylaws made by the parliament especially by National Assembly specify the task of the committee on scrutiny. The National Assembly's Rules of Procedure chapter 18 clauses 146 are related to the various committees. The National Assembly shall include various subject-matter wise committees or special committees to support the regular function of the National Assembly.[6]

Under the subject committees referred to in Article 97 of the Constitution, there shall be following committees referred to in clause 147 to ensure government accountability, oversight of government functions and issuance of direction and instructions. There are four different committees in place in accordance with clause 147, including legislative management and government assurance committee. The Legislative Management Committee, including other tasks, is responsible for legislative scrutiny.[7] It has made working procedure 2075 based on the bylaws (Bylaws of National Assembly, 2018) committee and is now being implemented. (Working Procedure of Legislative Scrutiny, 2018).

Legislative scrutiny is a new task that has begun in Nepal through the National Assembly's specific committee. It is not only the task but the provisions of the law, bylaws and procedures are also new. Though most committee members are new, the committee has started their work very smoothly. They are looking for experiences from around the world. It is necessary for them to understand about international experiences. In the initial phase committee consulted experts on committee business. In addition to the committee's regular task, experts advised the committee to initiate legislative scrutiny as stated in the bylaws. First of all, the Committee itself tried to understand what scrutiny is and how it operates. The Committee asked the expert to submit a paper on the specific topic. The Legislative Management Committee decided after a series of meetings to organize a major seminar on legal scrutiny. Committee invited all parliamentary and government officials including House Speaker and National Assembly Chairman, Law Minister and Attorney General for discussion.

The committee decided to draft a working procedure with the help of experts. The committee has set some ground, standards and tools for measuring the law as a scrutiny task in the working procedure. Very clear understanding was developed in the working procedure on the need for scrutiny. Objective, basis, process, tools, timeline, priority and limitation were very clearly specified.

a Major provisions of Working Procedure

The committee made the work procedure after rigorous exercise. Major working procedure provisions developed by the committee are basically referred to the various legal audit provisions. Procedure relating to an act implementation measure, study and investigation standard 2075 has been approved and effectively started on..... November 2018. Preamble of the procedure mentioned that the legal audit task is regulated and managed by the working procedure. Legal audit is not an easy task without principles. Examining the work already done by the parliament, execution by the government and interpretation by the Court is a sensitive task. The task of examining must therefore be within the principles. Author Franklin De vrieze writes the principles of scrutiny “the Principles discuss the mandate to conduct Post-Legislative Scrutiny in Parliament (the “why”), the scope (the “what”), the participants (the “who”), the processes (the “how”) and the timing (the “when”).”(Vrieze, Principles of Post-Legislative Scrutiny by Parliaments, 2018)

b Definition of legal audit:

Initially, defining their job, working procedure and limitations was a difficult job. The committee defined the meaning of the legal audit that prescribes the task successfully. As per the working procedure legal audit is defined as "The method of studying, investigating and auditing the implementation of any act, sub-clause any parts, federal laws its positive and negative impact on stakeholders concerned is called legal audit."[8]

c Objective of legal audit:

The objective is set out in clause 3 of the legal audit work procedure 2018. Clause 3 focuses primarily on research of proper law enactment and effective law enforcement. While the laws are being audited, it can look at whether the procedure is being properly implemented, imagining the laws ' error, duplications and redundant clause. The following five objectives are specified in the procedure:[9]

Ø To take necessary action to remove duplication of any laws

Ø To repeal inactive or redundant laws in whole or in part or any clause of the laws

Ø To create a conducive and necessary environment for the enactment of laws

Ø To encourage effective implementation of laws immediately after the enactment of laws

Ø To create a suitable condition for making laws in accordance with the spirit of constitution and the principles of natural justice.

d Basis of legal audit:

Legal auditing is not an easy task. Since it is a new practice in Nepal, a lot of caution should be taken while performing the activity. With this understanding, committee has specified the basis for the legal audit. It means there is no limitation in auditing the law. The committee is very concerned about effective law enforcement throughout. Consequently, committee found some basis for ensuring effective law enforcement. The Committee always has the competence to decide the legal audit basis. That is why the working procedure made it clear that the basis for the legal audit will be as initially prescribed by the committee. In addition to this working procedure, some legal audit measures have been mentioned. Following the 2018 working procedure, measures shall be adopted for this purpose;[10]

Ø To confirm whether the act allowed the relevant authorities to draw up rules, bylaws, directives and procedures.

Ø To confirm whether regulations, bylaws, directives and procedures were permitted by the authorities. If it permitted then whether or not the authorities followed it properly.

Ø Confirm whether target groups and stakeholders can achieve the social, economic and inclusive expectations or any benefits.

Ø To confirm whether laws have been implemented after the laws have been promulgated.

Ø Confirm whether or not the Supreme Court has ordered any law.

Ø To confirm whether or not the provisions of state policy and guidelines referred to in the constitutions have been implemented.

Ø Confirm whether or not any institution is expected to implement the laws established

Ø Confirm whether equality is maintained for the purposes of law enforcement

Ø Confirm whether or not law enforcement is consistent with the purpose, intention and purpose.

Ø Confirm whether or not the law has any economic, social or cultural impact.

Ø Confirm whether or not any provision of law required any modification.

Ø Confirm whether there is any objection and obstacle to law enforcement.

Ø Confirm whether laws are compatible with Nepal's international treaty and conventions.

Ø Any other basis that the committee considers.

e Jurisdiction of Legal Audit

Working procedure has the number of subjects listed as the committee's jurisdiction for legal audit purpose. The working procedure has study, research and investigation as topics. Law auditing must focus on state policies, state liabilities, and state mechanisms. According to the procedure, the Legislative Management Committee is entitled to study and research through committee itself or through staff, experts and expert groups on the following subjects;[11]

Ø Theoretical aspect of the bill and concerned state policy.

Ø Whether the act is genuinely compatible with the spirit of the bill.

Ø Whether the liability of the consolidated fund or any government financial liability.

Ø Submission or omission of any offense or increase or decrease substantive punishment clauses.

Ø Imposing, reducing or suspending tax.

Ø Establishment of all judicial or quasi-judicial bodies and their jurisdictions on matters relating to them.

Ø Any management of the regulatory framework or permission on matters relating to them.

Ø Implementation of acting in accordance with the law referred to in the Constitution.

Ø Any restriction on matters relating to fundamental rights.

Ø Regulation and management of everyday behavior and conducts of citizens.

Ø Any subject considered by the committee.

f Time of legal audit

The job of law auditing is not an open task. Not all laws are subject to auditing. Legal audit is not a task that never ends. Instead, the legal audit task is limited in terms of the law's length of time and maturity. Even so, the committee has full rights to decide what to do on legislative scrutiny and when to do it. According to the working procedure on the timeframe for legal audit, "Except for any instruction by the committee, generally audits of the laws shall be made if the laws are implemented for at least 3 years”.[12]

g Procedure of legal audit

Legal audit is the committee's substantive task. The committee has the right to recommend in any legal matter to the government through the legal audit. If committee finds some loopholes in the law then committee can recommend new legislation. If committee finds that proper bylaws, regulations and directives are not made properly, it may recommend taking necessary action for amendment. If committee finds some redundant clauses or non-compatible provisions then committee may recommend revising. This huge task must be properly accomplished. Therefore some process has been fixed in the working procedure. Another important part of the working process is how the legal audit objective has to be fulfilled. Consultations are the focus of the working procedure. Chapter 3 and clause 7 of the working procedure states that ,"Consultation with federal, provincial and local authorities and other stakeholders, observation, field visits and any other methods, consultation with experts, consultation with government authorities, consultation with civil societies, consultation with university professionals and research institutes, consultation with any others as considered by the committee".[13] It is very clear that the legal audit is a very sensitive job and therefore proper consultation with the concerned stakeholders is a must.

h Prioritizing legal audit

Legal auditing must be carried out, but should not be open to everyone. There are some criteria for prioritizing the audit task. Once again, the committee has full rights although some priorities have been set for this purpose by the working procedure. The Committee shall determine the priority according to the working procedure[14] on the following basis

Ø Citizen’s rights and freedom and citizenship related issues

Ø Public interest issues

Ø Good governance and judicial administrations related issues

Ø Use of natural resources related issues

Ø Consumer rights and public supplies related issues

Ø Drinking water, education and health related issues

Ø Women children senior citizens disable inclusion and social welfare issues

Ø Agriculture industries employment and labor management related issues

Ø Tourism and civil aviation management issues

Ø Urban development road and infrastructure development and others related issues

Ø As per consideration of committee issues

iTimeline of legal audit

Law auditing is not an open-ended task. The audit task must be completed within three months from the commencement. Three months is a legal audit timeframe. In the event of an unfinished task, the committee shall have full rights to take appropriate decision.[15]

j Limitation of legal audit

Legal audit is not an infinite task. It has some limitation. Constitutional provisions, general principles of law and justice, due respect of gender, colors, caste and languages, principles of balance of convenience, financial limitation and others limitations are limitation of the task of legal audit.[16]

Some of the miscellaneous provisions are also mentioned in Chapter 5 according to the legal audit working procedure. As per the legal audit working procedure the committee secretariat[17] shall also be a legal audit secretariat. Subcommittee and task force[18] shall be established as necessary. Expert support and expert panel[19] shall be obtained as required by the committee and the terms and references of the experts and expert panel shall be as prescribed by the committee. Committee’s task force and subcommittee shall submit the report[20] that has been approved by the committee to the National Assembly on behalf of the committee. Record[21] will be sent to the library of the parliament. Interpretation[22] of the working procedure is finalized after the consultation in the committee which is chaired by the Committee Chairman.

3 Law making process:

The process of law making varies across different regions, continents and countries. Although most parliamentary practices appear to be similar in the process of making law. Nearly the same practice was adopted where we tried to address common issues like why it is necessary to make law and how the law making takes place and what results are the substance of the law. Legislation aims at implementing government policies, maintaining the rules of law, institutionalizing decision-making processes, and fulfilling international obligations. These are the basics of making the law. From the very beginning, Nepal practices the same procedure. Mostly the financial and security bill known as the government bill can only be initiated by the government but any other bill known as the private bill can be initiated by any parliament member. Origin of the bill is mostly from the concerned ministry if it is a government bill and from a Member of Parliament if it is a private bill with adequate justification. Justification for bringing this bill must be provided at this stage. The bill is proposed when the existing laws are not sufficient and even the amendment cannot satisfy the need. If the cabinet is satisfied, the ministry will be then allowed to draft the bill. In the second stage, before the cabinet approval inputs from the law ministry is required to determine whether the bill is compatible with constitution and already existing state policies and international obligations. Upon consent from the law ministry the Cabinet will provide approval and the bill will be tabled in the parliament. After discussion in the parliament committee the bill will be approved and will be forwarded to National Assembly and finally for authentication by the parliament after which the bill will turn into Act.

4 Legislative Scrutiny Process and Structures:

Legislative scrutiny practices also vary in different regions, continents and countries as previously mentioned processes of law making. In parliamentary bylaws, Nepal formally adopted a separate committee. The committee has developed numerous parameters, standards and legislative scrutiny modalities. The scrutiny was initially defined by the working procedure with a clear objective. One of the major tasks in the field of legislative scrutiny is the establishment of the basis and jurisdiction by the working procedure. Procedure and priority and timeline are another achievement developed by Nepal's parliament in the field of legislative scrutiny. Nepal's parliament also identifies and incorporates the number of miscellaneous provisions and practicalities into the working procedure as a major contribution.

5 Stages of Scrutiny:

Stages of legislative scrutiny holds equal importance as legislative scrutiny these days. The entire purpose of legislative scrutiny is to ensure effective law enforcement. Parliament, although less focused on implementation, is liable to make laws. The parliament has also been given an oversight function that is also directly related to the government's effectiveness as well as legislation. Therefore, if it was done by proper investigation, pre-legislation will be insured during the legislation and effective enforcement of legislation. Thus, for the purpose of legislative scrutiny, pre-legislation, during legislation and post-legislation stages were developed by parliament of Nepal.

V Impact

The task of legislative scrutiny has just been introduced in the committee which has already drawn several attentions. Only preparatory work has been done by the committee to make all concerned stakeholders including ministries aware of the legislative work, the process of drafting legislation and finally the scrutiny to see whether the law is properly implemented or not. Only after a good discussion at each stage of legislation drafting and proper preparatory work we can make fruitful and result oriented law. There are a number of laws without rules and procedures and it makes implementation of these laws very difficult. During the scrutiny process, some of the bylaws are made.

1 Legal Impact

Basically, in parliamentary system they have two kind of bill having registered in parliament. Government bill is in top priority and private bill is in second. According to constitution there is attractive provision for private bill in principle but in practice it is rarely happening. Nepal experiences out of 70 years only three private bill had registered. It means bill drafting and presenting in the parliament is almost the task of government. Government in parliamentary system there is always having with commanding and relaxing majority. Once bill presenting in parliament by majority commanded government, it is obvious to be passed with limited discussion. Once government in majority, the law making process also shall be badly dominated by the effect of majority. In the absence of the legislative scrutiny unwanted consequences happening. With this stake the practices of legislative scrutiny has increasing day by day. When legislative scrutiny work started, the legal impact has seen in legal jurisdiction. Drafting a bill is not just for pass by parliament but it is beyond that. It means after enactment of law it should be functionable and it is scrutinizes by the parliament itself. This is a key massage conveying to draft person. Secondly, bill after approved from the parliament during the process of implementation, it has to be practical receptive and result oriented. In this phase of implementation the implementing agencies are always looking for effective implementation of law, which is most important legal impact. Thirdly, the objective of scrutiny is conveying clear message to drafting and implementing agencies both for better result and better law.

Nepal has just entered in the phase of scrutiny. Being a very young country in legislative scrutiny it has serious impact in bill drafting, implementation and taking care of positive results. Draft persons they are drafting a bill keeping in mind that it has to face scrutiny at any coast and in any phase. Because of such cause Nepal has getting better laws after the legislative scrutiny.

Very interesting fact is that India's lawmaking process is becoming increasingly controversial. A typical bill is drafted in secret by the government department concerned (sometimes in consultation with other departments, and often with just a few bureaucrats preparing a bill in a hurry), and this secret bill is approved by the Cabinet for presentation to the House of Parliament (or the State Legislature, as the case may be).[23]Usually, the content of the Bill is only made public when it is introduced in the House. You can deduce the attention paid to a typical Parliament bill from the following data:[24]

Ø In 2009, only 16% of the total Parliamentary time was spent on legislative business. 27% of the total Bills passed in the year by Lok Sabha was discussed for less than 5 minutes. Only five Bills passed by the Lok Sabha in 2009 were debated for more than three hours.

A rule of law is a key component of modern democracies. Without proper law and effective enforcement, it will be pointless to maintain the rules of law. Legal impact on the field of legislative scrutiny is therefore most important. Proper and effective implementation of the laws will be ensured by the practice of legislative scrutiny. In addition, it is possible to identify lapses and gaps and resolve them in order to modify them. Anomalies and duplications will be removed as well as redundant laws. These actions will make the legal regime smarter than the past and strengthen the rules of law and democracy. By establishing a culture of post-legislative reviews, these can be designed to assess whether a piece of legislation's objectives and anticipated effects actually took place on the ground. They can also identify any unintended effects that the legislation may have had. A key advantage would be the systematic data collection that would be a prerequisite for any such evaluation. Regular post-legislative assessments should therefore be translated into better laws.

2 Political Impact

The major task of the parliament is law making. In principles it is fine. However in practice it is happening rarely. The concern of the law makers is beyond that. Elected representatives are waiting for minister and task of development rather than law making. Any Efforts made by Member of Parliament in law making process has not count any more by the society. Peoples are not concern about who is contributing a lot in law making process and no one paid attention for better laws. Peoples are looking for immediate impact and benefit from development work. Better laws shall produce the impact in the society for long run. But peoples are losing their patient. Gradually the task of parliament is shifting towards developmental works from law making. In this critical scenario legislative scrutiny has taking vital role in parliamentary politics. When legislative scrutiny became a part of major task of parliament it effects on performance of parliament and working style and executive and law implementing agencies simultaneously.

There is no doubt; the goal of politics is to establish a civilized society and to run it smoothly to serve the nation and people. Only after proper law and effective law enforcement will the ideal goal is fulfilled. Legislative scrutiny will be a appropriate tool and it can prove itself. Legislative scrutiny therefore has an important role to play in promoting democracy. People will be happy and nation will only prosper in proper execution of law and democratic society. If the massage has disseminated that the law will be scrutinizing, then and there the journey of accountable politics has started. The rule of law has been implementing. Democratization of the society has been started through democratization of law making process. Ultimately, legislative scrutiny is developing as a appropriate tool of developing democracy. Therefore, political impact of the legislative scrutiny is most important in every country. It is fact the the whole world are not suffereing from lack of appropriate laws hut lack of effective implementation of the existing laws. Effective implementation of laws can be ensure through legislative scrutiny. Finally, the purpose of the review is to determine whether a law works in practice as intended and, if not, to find the reason and quickly address it through parliamentary process. Since there is no requirement for an ex-post law assessment, policymakers and bureaucrats do not have any systematic evidence of a law's effectiveness and performance.

VI Conclusion

The major task of parliament around the world is to make law, even though time in this job has not been given. India's world's largest democracy has bitter experiences. In 2009, only 16% of the total Parliamentary time was spent on legislative business. 27% of the total Bills passed in the year by Lok Sabha was discussed for less than 5 minutes. Only five Bills passed by the Lok Sabha in 2009 were debated for more than three hours. This is just another example not different from other parliaments as well. My conclusion, therefore, is that Parliament has not given the right time to make laws. The result would be a lack of proper laws and effective implementation due to less attention paid to the law making business which might have negative effect on legal, political and other sectors. Therefore, due consideration must be given to legislative scrutiny for positive legal and political impact.

VII REFERENCES

Jha, Suman. ‘Government not keeping Opposition on Board’ the Indian Express 15 April 2010, Retrieved from http://www.indianexpress.com/news/govt-not-keeping-oppn-on-board-complains-bjp/606522/0 .

Retrieved from, https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/scrutiny-parliamentary-scrutiny/

Retrieved from, https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/pre-legislative-scrutiny/

Retrieved from, https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/post-legislative-scrutiny/

Retrivedfrom, http://www.prsindia.org/index.php?name=Sections&id=5&parent_category=&category=60&action=bill_details&bill_id=989

Bylaws of National Assembly. (2018). Kathmandu: Federal Parliament Secretariate.

Devkota, K. (2018). Important of legislative Scrutiny and International Eperiences,Paper Presented at Conference on Legislative Scrutiny Organised by Legislative Management Committee, National Assembly, Nepal at Kathmandu November, 2018.

Federal parliament secretariate,Shinhadurbar Kathmandu. (2075). Rules of procedures of National Assembly.

The Constitution of Nepal. (2015). Kathmandu: Government of Nepal, Ministry of Law and justice, Law Book Management Committee.

Vrieze, F. D. (2018). Legislative Scrutiny UK,India,Indonesia and France. Westminster Foundation for Democracy.

Vrieze, F. D. (2017). Post-legislative Scrutiny Guid for parliaments. London: Westminster Foundation for Democracy.

Vrieze, F. D. (2018). Principles of Post-Legislative Scrutiny by Parliaments. London: Westminster Foundation for Democracy.

Working Procedure of Legislative Scrutiny. (2018). Kathmandu: Legislative Management Committee, National Assembly.

[1]https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/scrutiny-parliamentary-scrutiny/

[2]https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/pre-legislative-scrutiny/

[3]https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/post-legislative-scrutiny/

[4] Working Procedure of Legislative Scrutiny 2018.

[5] Constitution of Nepal,2015

[6] Bylaws of National Assembly 2075, clause 146

[7] Bylaws of National Assembly 2075, clause 147

[8] Working Procedure of Legislative Scrutiny 2018, clause 2a

[9] Working Procedure of Legislative Scrutiny 2018, Chapter 1, clause 3

[10] Working Procedure of Legislative Scrutiny 2018, Chapter 2, clause 4

[11] Working Procedure of Legislative Scrutiny 2018, Chapter 2, clause 5

[12] Working Procedure of Legislative Scrutiny 2018, Chapter 2, clause 6

[13] Working Procedure of Legislative Scrutiny 2018, Chapter 3, clause 7

[14] Working Procedure of Legislative Scrutiny 2018, Chapter 3, clause 8[1]

[15] Working Procedure of Legislative Scrutiny 2018, Chapter 4, clause 9

[16] Working Procedure of Legislative Scrutiny 2018, Chapter 4, clause 10

[17] Working Procedure of Legislative Scrutiny 2018, Chapter 5, clause 11

[18] Working Procedure of Legislative Scrutiny 2018, Chapter 5, clause 12

[19] Working Procedure of Legislative Scrutiny 2018,Chapter 5, clause 13

[20] Working Procedure of Legislative Scrutiny 2018, Chapter 5, clause 14

[21] Working Procedure of Legislative Scrutiny 2018, Chapter 5, clause 15

[22] Working Procedure of Legislative Scrutiny 2018, Chapter 5, clause 16

[23] Even the main opposition parties are rarely consulted during the drafting process. See, Suman Jha, ‘Government not keeping Opposition on Board’ the Indian Express 15 April 2010 (available at http://www.indianexpress.com/news/govt-not-keeping-oppn-on-board-complains-bjp/606522/0 ).

[24] Data provided by PRS Legislative Research, available at:

http://www.prsindia.org/index.php?name=Sections&id=5&parent_category=&category=60&action=bill_details&bill_id=989

Thursday, November 12, 2020

LEGAL AND POLITICAL ASPECT OF POST-LEGISLATIVE SCRUTINY IN ASIA SPECIAL FOCUS ON NEPAL'S EXPERIENCES

ABSTRACT