What happens when the House Speaker misspeaks—during a formal Parliament meeting that is dwelling on an issue of huge public interest—and does not correct the mistake then and there?

Opinions are divided.

Experts of parliamentary practices say once the House Speaker’s words go to records, they cannot be amended and the issue can reach the court. Others do not recognise it as a big issue and say the Speaker can always make amends—if not immediately, he or she can ask the Parliament Secretariat to make corrections.

Speaker Krishna Bahadur Mahara on Friday said something which apparently was not what he intended to say while endorsing the National Medical Education Bill.

Mahara declared Sections 2-53 of the bill were endorsed. But there was something amiss.

After the bill was presented for endorsement by Education Minister Giriraj Mani Pokhrel amid protests from the opposition Nepali Congress, Mahara had called for “aye” and “nay” votes. While lawmakers from the ruling Nepal Communist Party (NCP) were quick to vote in favour saying “aye”, Prem Suwal of the Nepal Majdoor Kisan Party was the only lawaker who voted against, saying “nay”.

And Mahara, whose performance as the Speaker of the House of Representatives has come into question on various occasions in the recent past, declared that Sections 2-53 were “endorsed” since a majority of lawmakers said “nay”.

Mahara did not correct the mistake and the House meeting was called off for the day.

Daman Nath Dhungana, a former Speaker, says since Mahara declared the said sections endorsed based on majority “nay” votes, it means the said sections stand as “not endorsed”. “And the Parliament Secretariat cannot amend this. The Speaker should have corrected the mistake then and there,” he told the Post.

However, officials at the Parliament Secretariat have a different take, who call it a “minor technical error”.

“Speaker is the authority when it comes to parliamentary affairs. It cannot be challenged in the court of law,” said Rojnath Pande, spokesperson for the Parliament Secretariat. “With the bill already tabled at the National Assembly, the issue has become insignificant,” he added.

Though Pande claimed it was a slip of the tongue and that was it was not an issue that needed to be blown out of proportion, a senior advocate said he is trying to take the issue to the court.

Surendra Bhandari said his bid to file a writ at the Supreme Court was blocked by the court administration.

“On Sunday, I was made to wait for hours. Today, the court administration refused to register my petition,” Bhandari told the Post. Bhandari’s argument is the National Medical Education Bill “remains unendorsed” because Mahara was endorsing “nay” votes, which meant the votes were against Sections 2-53 of the bill.

“After the Supreme Court refused to register my writ, I have registered another petition against the court’s refusal to accept my writ,” said Bhandari.

The top court will hear the petition on Tuesday and decided whether the decision to not accept the earlier petition was wrong or right.

But by that time, the National Assembly is likely to endorse the bill. On Sunday, the bill was tabled at the second meeting of the National Assembly amid protests by members of the Nepali Congress. Like in the House of Representatives, the ruling NCP commands a majority in the Upper House.

Senior Advocate Purna Man Shakya said “procedural issues” are the prerogative of Parliament but there have been many instances when the court has spoken about issues related to the House affairs.

One recent example, according to him, was the SC’s decision of May 5, 2017 of issuing a stay order against the impeachment motion of the Legislature-Parliament. Then-justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana had issued a stay order against the impeachment motion registered in the Parliament Secretariat and ordered then-chief justice Sushila Karki to resume office.

Experts say it all also depends on the seriousness of the matter. But what all constitute an issue “very serious” and “minor” is also a matter of contention.

Bhandari, the advocate, however, says what happened in Parliament on Friday was “a serious issue”.

“Correction could be made on minor mistakes, but not on such a serious issue of voting,” argued Bhandari. He added that there have been Supreme Court precedents where the judiciary had said Parliament cannot ignore laws and processes in the name of its prerogative.

Citing separate cases of advocates Prabhu Krishna Koirala and Chandra Kanta Gyawali (December 2011) in which the court, according to Bhandari, had established a principle that ‘Parliament cannot move ahead against the law and procedures in the name of its prerogative’ he has demanded a mandamus order from the Supreme Court.