Nepal Cabinet Shake-Up: Inside Removal of 2 Ministers From Balen Shah Govt

'Sacking controversial ministers is an exercise in good governance, but why were they appointed in the first place?'

From left: Sudan Gurung, Balen Shah, Deepak Kumar Sah.

(Photo: Altered by The Quint) 

"Meeting the public's expectations is our minimum duty, not the maximum we are capable of," Prakash Chandra Pariyar, a Member of Parliament from Nepal's ruling Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), tells The Quint days after the sudden exit of Sudan Gurung as the country's Home Minister.

Within just 30 days of the new government, the ‘New Nepal’ Prime Minister Balen Shah had promised is experiencing a political churn. The ministerial rollercoaster hit its steepest drop last week with Gurung's ouster over growing criticism of his financial transactions.

In a move that dominated social media feeds on 22 April, Gurung stepped down from the position amid scrutiny over his links to businessman Deepak Bhatta, a money-laundering accused who was arrested earlier this month.

While submitting his resignation, Gurung cited the "sanctity of the Gen Z movement" and the necessity of an "impartial" probe.

"When questions are raised against ministers, and if those questions keep mounting to the point where the entire government seems solely occupied with answering them, the Prime Minister has to replace them," notes lawmaker Pariyar, adding that party's intention is to make good on their promises to the public.

Prior to that, on 9 April, PM Shah had summarily dismissed Deepak Kumar Sah as Minister for Labour, Employment, and Social Security. The move came after a disciplinary investigation revealed Sah had leveraged his position to secure a seat for his wife on the Health Insurance Board.

'Parliament Suspended To Clear Path for Ordinances'

"The Balen Shah government likely felt it could not continue with such a controversial figure [Gurung] as the Home Minister while an investigation into the source of funds was required," is how constitutional expert Bipin Adhikari interprets the last week's development.

He points that given the position of Home Minister is traditionally viewed in Nepal as second only to the Prime Minister, "his removal shows a clear point of view regarding good governance," adding that he could be reinstated if found innocent. However, he adds:

"Nevertheless, this situation also raises questions about whether the Prime minister exercised enough caution and considered all aspects while initially forming the Council of Ministers."

In the backdrop of the instability, the sessions of both Houses of the Federal Parliament—the House of Representatives and the National Assembly—which were scheduled to be held on 22 April, were unexpectedly called off. As per recommendations made by the Balen Shah-led government, President Ram Chandra Paudel had initially said that sessions of both Houses would be held on 30 April.

Later, President Paudel made public another notice stating that the sessions had been postponed indefinitely due to "special reasons".

Bipin Adhikari explains that once a session of Parliament has been summoned, there has been no precedent of withdrawing it in Nepal.

“The government did not clarify why it summoned and then withdrew the session, although some government officials claimed it was due to a lack of preparation. However, they should not have summoned the Houses without being fully prepared,” he says.

He further says that the government’s 100-day deadline to initiate key reforms might have been delayed if they followed the standard legislative process for amending or creating laws. Therefore, to meet that deadline and fulfill previous promises, they may have intended to bring ordinances.

"There is an argument that they withdrew the Parliament summons specifically to clear the path for these ordinances," Adhikari says, adding:

“However, withdrawing a summoned House to bring an ordinance does not align with constitutional morality. Even if the government truly lacked preparation, doing this makes people lose trust in even the most formal government proceedings. This is particularly concerning for a government that has made good governance its primary agenda."

Bipin Adhikari

Political commentator Indra Adhikari adds that the administration's operational style appears to be "unprepared".

"I call this as a ‘learning by doing’ approach, which appears immature to those who are familiar with formal state systems."

Indra Adhikari

'Ministers Would Have Stayed Put If Not for Public Anger'

Speaking about the dismissal of ministers, Bipin Adhikari says that the government's stance seems clear.

"In Sah's case, there was a visible conflict of interest, and the government did not want to take a risk. In Gurung's case, it appeared that the decision was taken given that the investigation into his financial transactions would be a long one," he says.

On the other hand, Indra Adhikari says that the current political landscape in Nepal is defined by a lack of experience. She made these comments in the backdrop of criticism against portfolios being handed out to a number of people who purportedly don't have the required experience to serve in the roles.

"While recent resignations are seen as a positive sign, they are often the result of unbearable public pressure rather than a genuine commitment to political ethics," she tells The Quint, adding, "If the public had not voiced their concerns, many of these figures would likely have remained in power despite the controversies surrounding them."

Indra Adhikari further argues that the narrative of these political actors being ‘new’ is largely a misconception, and that most individuals in these newer parties were previously affiliated with older parties.

A case in point is that of Swarnim Wagle, senior vice-chair of the RSP who used to be a member of the Nepali Congress. He joined the RSP in 2024 after being denied a ticket by his former party. Another example is Rahabar Ansari, a CPN (Maoist) leader who joined the RSP in January 2026 just before the elections. He currently serves as a federal lawmaker representing the RSP.

“They often switch sides not because of a change in ideology, but because they face disciplinary actions or are seeking faster opportunities to obtain power that they couldn’t find in established structures,” she says.

'Incumbent on PM to Remove Controversial Ministers': RSP

Ruling RSP lawmaker Nisha Dangi, while defending her party's recent decisions, tells The Quint:

“We uphold the rule of law, and that must start with us rather than just demanding it from others. We cannot simply raise ethical questions for others and then ignore them when they are raised against us. We must start with ourselves, and that is the basis on which we are moving forward.”

RSP lawmaker Pariyar adds, "Replacing a controversial minister is seen as a way to maintain accountability. This should be taken positively.”

Regarding the postponement of the Parliament session, Pariyar called it a "coordination issue" and "technical error" regarding the finalising of dates.

"It can be called a technical error, nothing more. The government provides the business of the day to parliament. In parliamentary procedure, if not a single minister is present, the parliament cannot function. Coordination is essential for these processes."

Prakash Chandra Pariyar