- The Nepali Congress faces a legitimacy crisis as leadership disputes over its 15th General Convention move into the Supreme Court for judicial resolution.
- Shashank Koirala urged a convention boycott, warning that proceeding without resolving structural conflicts could lead to a permanent organizational split.
- Competing factions claim authority over party committees, threatening grassroots stability and the party’s readiness for upcoming national election cycles.
- Ongoing legal battles and potential disciplinary actions against rival leaders complicate efforts for a political solution, risking institutional unity.
Kathmandu, Nepal: Nepal’s oldest major democratic party, the Nepali Congress, is facing a deepening internal crisis as a long-running dispute over party legitimacy, leadership and organizational control has now moved into the courts and threatens to overshadow its upcoming 15th General Convention.
The party has scheduled its 15th General Convention for October 2–5, 2026, but preparations have been complicated by competing claims over the legitimacy of the party’s Central Working Committee. What was initially seen as an internal leadership struggle has gradually evolved into a broader dispute over who has the authority to lead the party, organize its convention and control its organizational structures.
Former General Secretary Shashank Koirala has now openly opposed participation in the convention being organized by the faction that emerged from the special general convention held in December. In a statement issued in the name of the “15th Central General Convention Preparation Committee,” Koirala urged party committees, office-bearers, members and active members at all levels not to participate.
Koirala warned that holding the general convention while the dispute over the legitimacy of the Central Working Committee remains under consideration by the Supreme Court could push the party toward a deeper organizational split.
His concern goes beyond the immediate leadership contest. If the dispute continues unchecked, rival factions could eventually establish competing committees from the central level down to provinces, districts, constituencies and local units. Such a situation could create confusion over who is authorized to make party decisions, recommend election candidates and mobilize party workers.
For a nationwide political organization like the Nepali Congress, that could have serious consequences, particularly as the country moves toward another election cycle.
A convention overshadowed by a legitimacy dispute
Under normal circumstances, a general convention is the Nepali Congress’s most important democratic exercise. It is expected to renew the party’s leadership, elect new committees and provide a platform for debating its political direction.
This time, however, the convention itself has become the source of the dispute.
The crisis intensified following the special general convention held in December, which was not attended by the faction led by former party president Sher Bahadur Deuba. The faction emerging from that gathering proceeded with a new Central Working Committee and began preparations for the regular 15th General Convention.
The Deuba faction rejected the legitimacy of the special convention and challenged the authority of the structure formed through it.
The result is a party in which competing factions claim to represent the legitimate Nepali Congress. The dispute is therefore no longer simply about who should lead the party. It involves control over party committees, membership structures, convention delegates and the organizational machinery that will ultimately determine the party’s strength in future elections.
The Supreme Court adds another layer of uncertainty
The legal battle has made an already complicated political dispute even more difficult to resolve.
Deuba and Acting President Purna Bahadur Khadka had sought a review of a previous Supreme Court division-bench decision concerning the legitimacy of the party’s Central Working Committee. The Supreme Court’s full bench granted permission to review the case, leaving the matter under judicial consideration.
Against this backdrop, the Deuba faction has moved toward the Supreme Court seeking to stop the planned 15th General Convention. Former minister Deepak Khadka reached the court with a writ petition, although the petition had not been registered at the time of the latest development. The court has indicated that the matter remains under study.
The legal question is significant because the authority of the body organizing the convention itself is being challenged.
This creates an obvious dilemma. If the convention proceeds while the legitimacy dispute is still before the court, one side may consider the process unacceptable. If the convention is halted, the opposing faction may view the decision as an attempt to prevent the party from moving forward.
Either way, a court ruling alone may not be enough to restore unity. The legal question can be settled by the judiciary, but the political distrust between rival factions will ultimately have to be addressed within the party.
Leaders still talking, but no breakthrough
Despite the escalating dispute, channels of communication among senior leaders have not completely closed.
Former party president Sher Bahadur Deuba met with senior leader Shekhar Koirala before the move toward the Supreme Court. Leaders also held discussions at Shashank Koirala’s residence shortly afterward.
The meetings suggest that some senior figures recognize the need for a political solution. But so far, dialogue has not produced a concrete agreement.
That is partly because the dispute is no longer simply personal. It concerns competing interpretations of the party’s constitutional and organizational authority. Any meaningful settlement will therefore have to address the status of the special general convention, the competing claims over the Central Working Committee and the process for conducting the 15th General Convention.
Shashank's position carries political weight
Shashank Koirala’s latest statement is politically significant because he has emerged as an important figure within the faction outside the party establishment while maintaining engagement with leaders associated with Deuba.
A national gathering held under his chairmanship from August 14 to 16 had maintained that the 15th General Convention should be held under Deuba’s leadership.
His latest appeal, therefore, should not be viewed merely as a personal objection to the convention. It reflects a broader political position within a significant section of the party.
Koirala’s central argument is that the Congress needs organizational and emotional unity before it proceeds with a convention. He has warned that moving ahead without resolving the current dispute could turn an internal disagreement into a permanent structural division.
Disciplinary action could further widen the divide
The conflict is also moving toward the disciplinary front.
The party’s Disciplinary Committee has indicated that it could initiate action against some leaders associated with the faction outside the establishment. The reported use of the former party president’s old office nameplate, as well as activities and speeches during the national gathering, are being considered as possible grounds for disciplinary action.
Discipline is an important part of any political organization. But disciplinary proceedings become politically sensitive when the legitimacy of competing factions is itself being contested.
If one faction views disciplinary action as an effort to silence political opposition, the measure could deepen rather than resolve the dispute. It could also encourage the targeted leaders and their supporters to further consolidate themselves outside the existing party structure.
The Congress therefore faces a delicate balance: maintaining party discipline without turning disciplinary mechanisms into another arena for political confrontation.
The biggest risk may be at the grassroots
The consequences of the dispute could eventually be felt most strongly not in Kathmandu, but among ordinary party workers across the country.
For years, local Congress activists have built party organizations in municipalities, rural municipalities, districts and constituencies. They organize campaigns, mobilize voters and maintain the party’s presence between elections.
If competing factions begin recognizing different committees or issuing conflicting instructions, grassroots workers could be forced to choose sides.
That would create a problem much more difficult to solve than a disagreement among senior leaders. Political leaders can negotiate at the center, but divisions among local workers can become deeply personal and may survive long after an agreement is reached at the top.
Electoral consequences
The timing of the dispute makes the situation even more serious.
A major political party cannot enter an election with an unclear chain of command. Candidate selection, campaign planning, local organization, electoral alliances and voter mobilization all depend on a functioning party structure.
If the Congress remains divided, rival political forces could take advantage of the uncertainty. Voters who are already frustrated with traditional political parties may interpret prolonged internal conflict as evidence of organizational weakness and leadership fatigue.
The party’s competitors could also benefit from divisions within Congress at the local level, particularly if disagreements over candidate selection or party committees spill into electoral contests.
For the Nepali Congress, therefore, the stakes extend far beyond the question of who wins the next leadership contest.
More than a leadership battle
The Congress has a long history of factional competition. Internal rivalry is not new to the party and, in many cases, competition has helped strengthen its democratic character.
The present crisis, however, is different because the disagreement has reached the level of institutional legitimacy.
The central question is no longer simply who should lead the party? It is increasingly which organizational structure is legitimate and who has the authority to conduct the party’s highest democratic exercise?
That distinction matters.
A competitive general convention can strengthen a political party by giving members a legitimate mechanism to choose their leaders. But if competing factions do not recognize the same convention or organizational structure, the convention itself can become a source of further division.
A political solution remains essential
The Supreme Court may eventually clarify the legal aspects of the dispute, but the deeper political problem will still require negotiation.
The major factions will have to find a way to address the status of the special general convention, the legitimacy of the competing Central Working Committees, the ongoing court proceedings and the organization of the 15th General Convention.
Without such an understanding, simply holding the convention may not settle the crisis. It could instead formalize the division.
For the Nepali Congress, the coming weeks will therefore be crucial. The Supreme Court proceedings, possible disciplinary actions, negotiations among senior leaders and preparations for the general convention will determine whether the party can move toward reconciliation or deeper confrontation.
The immediate dispute may be about the 15th General Convention, but the larger issue is the future of the Nepali Congress itself.
For a party that has played a central role in Nepal’s democratic history, the real test now is not simply whether it can hold a convention, but whether it can manage its internal differences without allowing political competition to become permanent organizational division.
The decisions made in the coming weeks could determine not only who leads the Nepali Congress, but also whether the party enters the next electoral cycle as a united national force or a weakened organization divided by competing claims of legitimacy.
