jss Open Journal of Social Sciences 2327-5960 2327-5952 Scientific Research Publishing 10.4236/jss.2026.1410008 jss-154432 Article Business Economics Social Sciences Humanities Comprehensive Electoral Constituency Delimitation as a Potential Innovative Solution against the Nepalese Currently Implemented Weightage System Electoral Constituency Delimitation Thapa Deepak 1 2 3 4 Akshamala Research Technology and Innovation, Kathmandu, Nepal Business Consulting Group, Kathmandu, Nepal Accountability Initiative, Kathmandu, Nepal Neeti Anushandhan Pratishthan, Nepal (NeNAP), Kathmandu, Nepal

The author declares no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

 09 10 2026 10 2026 14 10 128 224 25 08 2026 07 10 2026 10 10 2026 © 2026 by the authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. 2026 This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2026.1410008

Almost all political, economic, financial, and population migration indicators of Nepal have been showing pessimistic trends, reflecting an increasingly sensitive status due to the electoral delimitation, an oversized mixed electoral system, and a hugely overburdened governing structure fuelled by a lack of good governance. In fact, “electoral delimitation” and “electoral system” are directly associated with the “governing structure,” and the other remaining factor, such as “lack of good governance,” is, to a significant extent, a by-product of political instability sourced by this giant “mixed electoral system.” Furthermore, provided the availability of a couple of my prior research publications regarding the aspects of governing structural reform and electoral interventions, this research is entirely focused on electoral delimitation. It has studied the currently implemented electoral constituency delimitation and identified various issues or gerrymandering due to the derogative scaling of its only available and based statistical tools called the weightage system. Due to not only the ill scaling but also the rigidity of the weightage system toward addressing the status of all available diversities or deviations, the only available modern electoral delimitation called “Weightage Electoral Delimitation System” has been failing to address the entities of equality, equity, and inclusion at the determinant, distributional, and representational levels. Significant amounts of spatial gerrymandering have been noticed in most of the Terai districts—most particularly Sarlahi, Mahottari, Saptari, Morang, Dhanusha, Dang, Banke, Kailali, and Kanchanpur, etc.—along with numerical gerrymandering. The maximum electoral constituencies, almost 49% of total seats from both the FPTP and PR electoral systems (135 MPs out of a total of 275 MPs and 269 MLAs out of 550 MLAs), have been provided to Terai alone, disregarding almost 80% of the geography of Nepal—Hilly & Himalaya regions, and their population. Thus, the research has introduced “Comprehensive Statistics of Balance & Flexibility (CSoBaF)” to form the “Comprehensive Electoral Constituency Delimitation System (CECD System),” guided by the “Comprehensive Principle of Delimitation (CPoD),” in order to address the available diversities and deviations with the spirit of political core values to prevent the existence of any potential gerrymandering. For the validation of the constituency delimitation, the Validity Status Determination System (VSDS) has been added with its own statistical formulations that categorize four validation clusters with a two-dimensional validation system both less than 100% down to 1% and from more than 100% up to 199% to deal with and validate multi-determinant parameters effectively, efficiently, and inclusively. Anyway, the CECD System with CSoBaF has maximum flexibility to address, inclusively, all the statuses of the potentially available deviations or diversities from 0% - 1200% addible and 0% - 97.25% deductible on its average value (μ or

α

¯

), comprehensively covering all the potential clusters from Minimum Normal Deviation to Maximum Normal, Maximum Normal to Minimum Exceptional Deviation, and from Minimum Exceptional to Extreme Exceptional Deviation with its own Average, Addible, and Deductible Statistics Methods. After the establishment of CSoBaF, the research has delimited the overall constituency of Nepal. The remarkable aspect of CECD System is also about its measurability. It makes the equality, equity and inclusion as the measurable criteria. It has equally and inclusively distributed the FCAs among the districts as per their parameters and determinants on a case-by-case basis. Anyway, the best part is that it has allocated only one (1) FCA for only twenty-one (21) districts with all validity status, unlike the thirty-five (35) delimited districts (almost half the number of districts) of the currently delimited and implemented constituency delimitation. In addition, the current status of the spatial gerrymandering mostly seen in the Terai region has been justifiably addressed and the numerical gerrymandering has been settled with CECD, and an inclusive figure of 44% and its equivalent 121 MPs (64 from FPTP and 57 from PR) has been determined against the currently implemented 49.09% (135 MPs). Anyway, Absolute Non-discriminatory Operational Mechanism; its own new statistical tools with a new validation system; universally & locally applicable constituency delimitation; neither urban nor rural but all-oriented inclusive electoral constituency delimitation; assurance of “LUAs < SPA < FCA Concept”; cost-effective, rational & pragmatic and more inclusive constituencies; appropriate to address all the weaknesses and loopholes of the only available modern weightage system-led constituency delimitation; etc., are major conclusive features of the Comprehensive Electoral Constituency Delimitation System (CECD System). And, the “Comprehensive Statistics of Balance & Flexibility (CSoBaF)”, “Comprehensive Principle of Delimitation (CPoD)”, “Comprehensive Electoral Constituency Delimitation System (CECD System)”, and “Validity Status Determination System (VSDS)” have been established as innovations and important achievements of this research.

 Theory of Statistics Electoral-Delimitation Fair Electoral Delimitation Theory Election-System Electoral Theory of Consensus & Majoritarianism Growth-Maximizing Economic Theories Forced & COMPULSIVE Migration Theories Governing Structural Reformation and Good Governance 1. Introduction

What typical course of direction and condition the particular country takes, obviously, depends on how the form of its governance and corresponding political representation has been set and established within its governing structure. The political representation of the country depends on what and how its electoral system and electoral constituencies are designed. Similarly, in order to ensure the effectively operational governing system and governance structure, political representation, electoral system and elected government, and policy and program, etc., good governance or its respective honest decisional, operational, and implementational execution is the only mandatory tool. In the case and context of an electoral constituency boundary, if everything remains the same and intact, we need to assess how the electoral boundaries have been delineated and how representation is distributed across the country in order to acknowledge how the electoral constituency delimitation and corresponding distribution and allocation of representation have been made countrywide. Before doing so, we need to see the structural provision and the number and size of governing structures as directed by the constitution. Upon the existence of any infeasibility in the existing constitution in terms of the size and form of the governing structure, we have no option other than to go for a constitutional amendment. And definitely, with an infeasible constitutional provision, if we or any Constituency Delimitation Commission conducts electoral delimitation, there is for sure the existence of discrepancies or mismatches or overburdened electoral constituencies with lots of gerrymandering. In the case of Nepal too, we have some constitutional provisions regarding an oversized governing structure, an overloaded mixed electoral system with the mandatory existence of FPTP & PR and their separate electoral quotas of 165 & 110 for MPs and 330 & 220 for MLAs, 7 state governments, 7 assemblies with the Federal Union Government and Federal Assemblies, along with 753 local governments, etc.; these are the constitutional provisions we need to review in order to maintain their feasibility and sustainability.

Furthermore, having a total of 761 governments (1 federal, 7 state, 753 local units) and, as reported, oversized governments, along with the 275-member Federal Assembly, 550-member State Assembly, and 59-member National Assembly, raises striking questions about its upper government structure; on the other hand, having a total of 37,012 political posts (*Appendix for source) across all three government structures also raises questions about its size and unhealthy and expensive operating costs.

([75])

In spite of, and along with, the availability of all these discrepancies, the oversized electoral constituency delimitation has been executed, but with gerrymandering and the mal-proportionate distribution of electoral constituencies by the Constituency Delimitation Commission of Nepal in the year 2017. One thing is that it has been constitutionally arranged as oversized, and the other thing is that even this oversized number of constituencies has also been gerrymandered or ill-distributed among various geographies. Leaving all these constitutionally provisional issues aside to the possibility of a constitutional course of future amendment, let us only focus on the aspects of electoral delimitation as the research paper itself is all about. However, to identify vivid impacts of this huge, over-expensive electoral delimitation guided by its overloaded mixed electoral system, and the over-structured mixed electoral system sourced by its oversized governance structure, this research is going to evaluate the overall aspects of the country, especially its political, economic, judicial, populational, administrative, etc., facets. This process is going to provide a valid ground for further research on the reformation of electoral constituency delimitation, the electoral system, and governing structure.

Anyway, now to talk about electoral constituency especially the current trend of constituency, it was delimited by the Constituency Delimitation Commission in the year 2017, and it has been in execution for 20 years up to 2037. The commission had delimited Nepalese electoral areas by enforcing a “weightage system” and the major parameters had been focused only on 2 parameters, population and geography, though other parameters such as remoteness, administrative boundaries, cultural and social traits, transportation proximity, economic viability, aboriginal and ethnic identity, etc., were and are also constitutionally provisioned [12]. The given weightage for these 2 parameters had been set to a 90:10 ratio, 90 for population and 10 for geography, which is completely contradicted by the provision of Article 286 (5). The article says, “While determining election constituencies pursuant to this Article,the Election Constituency Delimitation Commission shall so determine the constituencies,having regard to population and geography as the basis of representation,and as to ensure that the ratio between the geography,population and number of members of such election constituencies is equal,so far as practicable”. In fact, the implemented weightage system has made the electoral constituency delimitation almost population-based or entirely population dominant. It had not given rational and pragmatic weightage to geography, distribution of population, and other parameters. The other remaining parameters are only used to determine the directional or spatial dimension of the composition of each electoral area. Anyway, the following are the commission recommended district-wise numbers of electoral constituencies (Table 1).

Table 1. Specific conceptual framework.

Number of Electoral Areas for MPs and MLAs No. of Districts Name of Districts
1 Electoral Area for MP for the Federal Assembly, and 2 Electoral Areas for MLAs for State Assemblies 35 Taplejung, Panthar, Dhankuta, Terathum, Santhuwasabha, Bhojpur, Solukhumbu, Okhaldunga, Khotang, Ramechap, Dolakha, Rasuwa, Lamjung, Manag, Mustang, Maygdi, Parwat, Argakhanchi, Pyuthan, Rolpa, E. Rukum, W. Rukum, Salyan, Jajarkot, Dolpa, Jumla, Kalikot, Mugu, Humla, Bajur, Bajhang, Doti, Dadeldhura, Baitadi, and Darchula.
2 MPs and 4 MLAs 21 Ilam, Udayapur, Sindhuli, Sindhupalchok, Kavrepalanchok, Bhaktapur, Nuwakot, Dhading, Makawanpur, Gorkha, Tanahu, Syangja, Baglung, E. Nawalparasi, W. Nawalparasi, Palpa, Gulmi, Bardiya, Surkhet, Dailekh, and Achham.
3 MPs and 6 MLAs 7 Lalitpur, Chitwan, Kaski, Kapilbastu, Dang, Banke, and Kanchanpur.
4 MPs and 8 MLAs 9 Sunsari, Saptari, Siraha, Dhanusha, Mahottari, Sarlahi, Rautahat, Bara, and Parsa.
5 MPs and 10 MLAs 3 Jhapa, Rupandehi, and Kailali.
6 MPs and 12 MLAs 1 Morang.
10 MPs and 20 MLAs 1 Kathmandu.

Source : Delimitation Commission Report of early September 2017 ([10]).

With this weightage system, the Commission had delimited the constituencies in a mal-proportionate manner. Geographically huge areas comprising almost 35 districts of the Hilly and Himalayan regions had received only a single electoral constituency each district. In contrast, the highly populated but geographically small Terai region, constituting almost 23% of the territory, had alone received 78 constituencies out of a total of 165 constituencies for FPTP. Including 51.45% of PR seats, it had received 135 MPs out of 275 MPs. On average, geographically, the Terai had received 49.09% of MPs. Furthermore, almost all of these seats are centered in the highly populated cities of Terai.

In this way, the notion of “non-decreasing of at least 2 constituencies for each district” in the previous Interim Constitution of Nepal 2007 (Article 154.A.8) and the earlier Constitution of Nepal 1990 (Article 105.2) has been completely ignored. The fair delimitation principle of “impartiality” has been totally undermined, and “distribution of population” has been entirely ignored by only leveraging the “concentration of people” ([57]). In an attempt to make delimitation as “equal representation”, the commission disregarded “equitable representation”, without which democracy cannot be inclusive. This is obviously no exception in the current context of inclusive democracy in the Nepalese Federal Democratic Republican State (Article 4).

Thus, the recent report and recommendation of delimitation, indeed, raise the following questions.

What is inclusion in federalism, and what is the role of inclusion in delimiting the boundaries of electoral constituencies? Who are the outreached, ignored, deprived, and discriminated populations or geographies? Is it urban, Terai, or rural areas of rural hilly and Himalayan districts? Then, what about the utterance of inclusion in the inclusive democracy of the Federal Democratic Republic State of Nepal? And what about the future and sustainability of the delimitation?

Thus, the [10] had even boycotted the basic guiding principle of inclusion by setting a derogatory “weightage system” of “90/10” for population and geographic area ([10]), which in itself is completely against the spirit of “inclusive democracy” of the federal democratic republic of Nepal on the one hand, and on the other, as the population and geographic area are two different parameters that require both parameters to be dealt with systematically, the simple “weightage system” cannot allocate rational electoral constituencies accurately, definably, and justifiably, remaining under the spirit of democracy.

In addition, the following are snapshots of the limitations, problem analysis, major issues to address, and key solutional clue of the weightage system.

1.1. Limitation of Weightage System Electoral Constituency Delimitation

The Weightage System Electoral Constituency Delimitation cannot delimit the exceptional cases correctly as it only focuses on one parameter. Even if there is a constitutional provision for the availability of a certain minimum deviation in order to incorporate its specificity, such as “equitable representation”, “distribution of population”, and “size & difficulties of geography”, that is not enough. It only addresses one parameter, population, and the acceptability of deviation is very minimal. It does not address exceptional cases and the availability of deviations and diversities. It is more about equal representational delimitation and it remains silent when there are exceptional cases requiring inclusive and equitable representational delimitation. Typically, the Nepalese delimitation procedure does not address these deviations and diversities. However, the constitution has arranged the provision of having at least one constituency in each district. Yet, this is not enough to address the exceptional cases.Apart from the exceptional, it also remains silent when there are other normal deviations as well. In reality, in almost all cases, the actual real constituencies are surely normal deviations. The question is how you justify when there is no mechanism in the weightage system for adjusting these normal to exceptional deviations or diversities. It only discusses deviation or diversities of a certain minimum scale of the first parameter, but it does not state what it should be in terms of the second parameter. The maximum number of constituencies are allocated to cities of the Terai and centers. very few are allocated to the Hilly and Himalaya regions. If the parameter of one determinant is designed or remains higher, the second remains undermined. Similarly, if the second determinant is designed or remains larger, the first determinant remains affected. In both cases, the total electoral constituency delimitation of the country is entirely affected. Even if it is put somewhere around the equilibrium point, it cannot appropriately address the availability of normal and exceptional deviations. It is exactly the big question that the weightage system does not have any answer for, and it is its limitation or problem. To be more specific, if electoral constituency delimitation ignores geographic area in the name of a weightage system only emphasising population, it means that it is limiting the rights and future of people of the rural area where the government has to invest most of its capital for physical infrastructural development with some small investment for day-to-day operational services for rural people. To add a little bit to it, the people of rural villages—though smaller in population size and extremely large in geographic area—are actually suffering significantly from poverty, exclusion, deprivation, unemployment, and lack of basic access in comparison to the urban population. Moreover, in the primitive condition of unavailability of even basic infrastructure and facilities in rural areas of Nepal, the government must essentially allocate majority portion of its development budget for rational rural development. It is one of the biggest questions whether and how much budget the government of Nepal has been allocating for its rural governance and development. However, if constituency delimitation is ignoring population in the name of geographic area, then it is limiting the rights and future of the people in urban areas, where the government has to invest more for the day-to-day operational facilities of urban life, with some average scale (in terms of its investment in daily operational facilities) of infrastructural development. So, in both cases, the unnecessary weightage principle or system for delimitation turns out to be imperfect delimitation that has an adverse impact on both sides: the people of the center as well as the periphery.

1.2. Problem Analysis

The number and distribution of electoral constituencies are not entirely unjust. Existence of Gerrymandering. Inequality in state power sharing and political representation. Lack of public perception of balanced and equitable development. Almost all of the available modern delimitations follow the weightage system. It is mostly based on the weightage given to various primary and secondary determinants. Thus, there is always a chance of questions arising regarding the ratio set for various determinants. It also raises curiosity about how it addresses the specific increment of one determinant with others. Thus, it appears more manipulative, as it alters the ratio rather than incorporating and automating with the actual naturally available ratio of determinants through the natural automation system called AODS (Automatic Objective Determination System). This is what, actually, the CPoD (Comprehensive Principle of Delimitation) guided delimitation named CECD (Comprehensive Electoral Constituency Delimitation) discusses further ahead in this research.

1.3. Major Issues to Address

Highly populated but geographically very small cities and surroundings such as Kathmandu, Biratnagar, Pokhara, Birgunj, Butwal, etc. Rarely populated but extremely large districts such as Manag, Mustang, Dolpa, etc., And how you address these issues to ensure inclusivity, equality, and equitability at the constituency delimitation level is the major issue to address.

1.4. Key Solutional Clue

The new dynamic “Comprehensive Electoral Constituency Delimitation” led by the “Comprehensive Principle of Delimitation” and its own all-in-one statistical operating mechanism called “Comprehensive Statistics of Balance and Flexibility” with its “Validity Status Determination System (VSDS)” is the solution which is established throughout this research.

1.5. What Is the Comprehensive Principle of Delimitation?

The Comprehensive Principle or Comprehensive Principle of Delimitation (CPoD) means a pervasive, broad, holistic, integrated, universal, cosmological, macrocosmic, extensive, or microcosmic principle (or basis, source, truth, fact, rule, set of beliefs, proposition) that serves as the foundation for a system or system of belief or behavior, or chain of reasoning for setting the clear boundary or limitation or meaning for the elimination of ambiguity and further clarification of specific terminology, idea, field, discipline, stream, and faculty. It believes in having and developing its own continuously developing, well-developed system of thought based on evidence-informed, vision and value-guided world and humanitarian welfare, prosperity, and futuristic movement with its own sophisticated and well-equipped system, model, tool, methodology, operating mechanism, organization, and governance to at least address the overall context/situation/issue/problem/aspect/welfare/prosperity more perfectly, scientifically, theoretically, and as well as pragmatically that of other available traditional or existing principles are unaware of. It trusts in the existence of the Real World, which is so vivid and diverse, and, thus, develops a consent and instrument for studying and addressing each individual status/case/issue/situation/context/possibility or welfare individually as per the guidance of broader systematic categorization of rational and pragmatic local/national/global/universal paradigm and its respective Super-Smart Comprehensive Master system/policy/plan/resource/program/project/campaign. Thus, from the electoral constituency delimitation perspective, CPoD is only the means through which delimitation can be as exactly done as per the spirit and objectives of the constitution, as well as humanitarian and pure political core values (Democratic or Republican), with more qualitative and quantitative results. Unlike traditional Weightage System Delimitation, it can address each and every corner/edge/periphery/rural and Centre (Urban/City) and its population on an essence and necessity basis. Thus, it can deal with its very Average to Normal Flexibility Case/deviation/diversity up to Exceptional Cases/deviation/diversity at once. Hence, it has global essence along with individual national significance ([73]). Positive-Bosomism, Humanism, and Stato-Dynamism & Progressivism are the major traits of the Comprehensive Principle. It believes in core political values, where there is no space for any kind or form of discrimination. Everywhere, there is only positive and pure democracy or publico-cracy or people’s political governance system with positive and benevolent justice, facilities, rights, and benefits with rational responsibilities. It has eternal trust in natural human rights (life, liberty & pursuit of happiness, and social, political, economic and employment, legal, etc.), human diversity, individuality, equality, prosperity, integrity, solidarity, fraternity, humanism, peace, and development. It also believes in the human identity principle, such as individualism on the one hand, and on the other, it correlates individualism, self-dependency, and independency in the context of specific relations, family, society, nation, global and cosmological perspective. It trusts heading towards prosperity through unity, integrity, and the harmonic principle of awareness, progressivism and stato-dynamism, and respective comprehensive movements. It has a strong belief in the principle of political ethics. It trusts the concept that the “world” is our only “home” and the “people” dwelling here are the “family members”, the “kinship” is the one and only single “sole motto”, and global and universal “friendship, fraternity, production, productivity, employability, and services”, etc. are the means of “tool”, “humanism” and “humanity” are its single “ideology”, and “empowerment”, “self-dependency”, “independency”, “cooperation”, “collaboration”, “coordination”, “partnership”, “unification”, “integrity”, “togetherness”, “transparency” and “accountability” etc. are the means of instruments, and “human prosperity” and “peace” are its ultimate “goal and vision”. Comprehensive Principle is such a systematically integrated principle or system that advocates for multiple available ideologies at once. It advocates for comprehensive capitalism in both context of capital and social-capital building, empowerment and partnership in course of providing comprehensive suppliance of pure public welfare services and development projects in order to step or achieve supreme prosperity. Because it has the optimum dynamism to incorporate with both private and social capitalism for maximum performance and deliverable growth. Similarly, it refers for the Comprehensive Socialism in social context, and Comprehensive Individualism in context of individual. Similarly, it recommends “Localism” in place of local, “Nationalism” in the terms of the nation, “globalism” in the context of the world, and “universalism” in the setting of the Universe. What proportions of these ideologies, the Comprehensive Principle carries? it depends on its (Comprehensive) own principal parameters based on the status of the specificity of the country. In addition, it carries foundational trust on having its own Comprehensive Economy, Comprehensive Tax policy & System, Comprehensive Health & Education Policies and System, Comprehensive Foreign Policy & Diplomacy, and other policies and systems etc. along with its own essentially additional and innovative stato-dinamic and progressive core values and quality systems strategically directed towards the “Supreme Prosperity”. Therefore, “Comprehensive Principle” which is identified and taken as the English equivalent word for Nepalese “Brihatarwad” [“बृहतरवाद”]} is substantially much more than available existing ideologies. In fact, the Comprehensive Principle is “Brihatarwad” [“बृहतरवाद”] and “Brihatarwad” [“बृहतरवाद”] is its ideology. The comprehensive principle has a faith in PGLCMS (Political Governance Life Cycle Management System). Thus, it believes in public supremacy and sovereignty. It innately holds foundational belief in the public welfare state, multi-party system, regular & updated election and electoral system, executive-legislatives-judiciary governance system, the rule of law, transparency, accountability, good governance, meritocracy, development and prosperity etc. Therefore, it is an ideology, thought, or model that can recognize, justify, unify, and mobilize each and every individual from each and every edge (rural area) and centre (capital, urban, city, etc.) irrespective of the race, colour, and class for the prosperity of each and every individual from each and every edge and centre without any form of discrimination, deprivation, domination, exploitation, or isolation. There is only, and only, the prosperity of local, national, global, and universal sectors through the prosperity of “ALL”.

Thus, it has become crystal clear that the weightage system delimitation has several drawbacks and has also been criticized by several scholars for not being inclusive, equal, and equitable at the same time ([57]). Thus, it raises the question—what is inclusive, equal, and equitable delimitation, then? It is exactly what this research paper is going to explore throughout this research effort. Anyway, with this finding, the “Comprehensive Statistics of Balance and Flexibility (CSoBaF)”, “Comprehensive Principle of Delimitation (CPoD)”, “Comprehensive Electoral Constituency Delimitation System (CECD System)”, and “Validity Status Determination System (VSDS)” are going to be established as innovations and important achievements of this research.

 2. Literature Review

The term electoral delimitation is composed of two words—Electoral and Delimitation. “Electoral” stands for election and it means the political process of selecting people’s representatives for various political roles of the government, where the people choose their favourite representatives based on their size or majority of votes. It is the soul of the modern political system that ensures people’s regular, fresh, and updated political representation via formal and regular selection of various people’s political representatives for the formation of the government and governing structure to effectively operate people’s benevolent and according multi-faceted development, administration, and welfare activities. Whereas, the diction “Delimitation”, however, is derived from the English verb “delimit”, which itself is composed of the assimilation of two words “De” + “Limit” that means to limit any vague terminology, idea, field, discipline, stream, and faculty so that it can be clear enough to at least eliminate ambiguity of specific terminology, idea, field, discipline, stream, and faculty. In this way, from a very generalist point of view, delimitation is a systematic process of eliminating ambiguity and extending its according further clarification of any specific terminology, idea, field, discipline, stream, and faculty by setting a clear boundary or limitation. Thus, electoral delimitation is the process of drawing the boundaries of electoral areas or districts for electoral management and modern political practice. An electoral area or district or arena is an electoral unit where multiple available political parties compete with each other to represent the voters’ population by winning a seat for political representation of citizens.

In delimitation science, especially political delimitation, electoral delimitation is the process of drawing or redrawing the boundaries of electoral areas or districts for electoral management and democratic political practices.

([75])

Various determining parameters are set for the delimitation of electoral areas. These are mostly directed by the constitutional provisions of the respective countries. However, the most important parameters are population, geography, remoteness, administrative boundaries, cultural and social traits, transportation proximity, economic viability, aboriginal and ethnic identity, etc. The standard directive principles for electoral delimitation are impartiality, equality, representativeness, non-discrimination, and transparency. However, various variations can be seen regarding these directive principles at the implementation level of various countries as per their political orientation and constitutional provisions. Similarly, there are also two types of electoral delimitation—traditional electoral delimitation and modern electoral delimitation. Traditional delimitation is such an electoral delimitation where knowledge of delimitation was either limited or non-existent. Almost all traditional delimitations, even up to the colonial period, are supposed to be traditional electoral delimitation. In contrast, modern delimitation is such a delimitation where knowledge of delimitation was developed and implemented according to its principles and criteria to ensure a fair election system and modern political values. Almost all contemporary modern delimitation systems utilize a weight-based system called the weightage system. It relies on employing only one predetermined weight to various determinants in all available contexts and statuses.

Anyway, as far as the delimitation of the electoral area of Nepal is concerned, it does not have a history longer than that of its democracy. The first delimitation was introduced in 1951 AD, alongside the establishment of democracy in the country. However, it had to wait until the People’s Democratic Movement of 1990 to get the first version of systematic modern electoral delimitation fueled by its weightage system. All electoral delimitations carried out prior to 1990 were largely traditional electoral delimitation.

Anyway, the first electoral delimitation was introduced with the introduction of democracy in Nepal in the year 1951 AD. As per the Interim Constitution of Nepal 1951, the election commission {Article 69 (2)}, election tribunal, and delimitation of constituency were clearly provisioned and introduced in the Nepalese political streams for the very first time, though there was no clear-cut provision for having a separate delimitation commission. No parameters were constitutionally mentioned as the basis for the delimitation, though reports such as the Administrative Restructuring Committee 1953 and the Administrative Restructuring Committee 1957 played an important role in engineering 109 electoral districts or areas for the House of Representatives.

Similarly, with the first elected democratic government and its promulgated constitution of Nepal 1959, the clear-cut constitutional provision of the delimitation commission {Article 22 (3)} was established for the very first time along with the election commission, election tribunal, and unquestionability of delimitation in the court. Some basic determinants or indicators such as administrative district boundaries, population density, transport facilities, geographical features, and community and human diversity, etc., were taken as parameters. The constitution did not say much about the size and structure of these commissions.

The electoral districts shall be delimited by a Delimitation Commission appointed by His Majesty in His discretion, in such manner that each shall contain, as nearly as may be practicable, an equal number of electors, account, however, being taken of boundaries of administrative districts, the density or sparsity of population, transport facilities, physical features, and the community or diversity of the inhabitants. {Article 22 (3)—[77]}

As the constitution was very short-lived, the provision of the then constitution’s delimitation had never been implemented due to the coup of King Mahendra and the promulgation of the Panchayat Constitution of Nepal in 1962. There was no constitutional provision for a Delimitation Commission during the period of direct rule by King Mahendra, and the delimitation of that time was still, for sure, traditional.

Similarly, with the restoration of long-lost democracy in 1990 through the people’s democracy movement and the establishment of the Constitution of Nepal 1990, the Election Constituency Delimitation Commission (Article 105) was established with the identification of certain parameters such as administrative district boundaries, more than 2 seats or electoral units in each district, geographical features, population density, transportation services, and communal homogeneity or heterogeneity of the local residents, along with a more powerful Election Commission (Article 103) and a separate Election Court (Article 106) for election disputes. The weightage system was used as a statistical tool for electoral delimitation, but which specific weightages were used for particular determinants was not clearly published. However, the best part of it was the assurance of balanced political participation for its MPs, and a minimum of 2 electoral (Legislative) quotas were set for each district. The weaknesses were the existence of some notable gerrymandering or malapportioned electoral constituencies. Anyway, there were 205 electoral areas for the House of Representatives ([9]), and 60 electoral seats were allocated for the National Assembly.

After determining the number of seats in the House of Representatives for each district pursuant to Article 45, the Election Constituency Delimitation Commission shall delimit the constituencies in districts having more than one seat (meaning 2 MP seats).

{Article 105 (2)—[11]}

After the King Gyanendra Coup and the people’s democracy movement, and the establishment of the fully democratic interim constitution in 2007, a more dynamic version of the Election Commission (Article 128) and the Constituency Delimitation Commission (Article 154 A) were formed with the primary aim of achieving the federal democratic Constitution of Nepal via the Constituent Assembly. The election system was constitutionally set as a Mixed Electoral System for both FPTP and PR electoral systems with the ratio of 40:60. The parameters for electoral delimitation were constitutionally provisioned as equality of population, geographical features, special attention to the existing administrative district boundaries, population density, transportation facilities, and the communal and cultural characteristics of the people living in such districts.

While delimiting the electoral constituencies pursuant to Clause (6), on the basis of equality of population, geographical convenience, and special characteristics, attention shall be paid to the boundary of each administrative district, geographical conditions, population density, transportation facilities, and the communal and cultural characteristics of the people living in such districts. {Article 154. A. 7—[80]}

Most of the above-mentioned parameters were mainly used for the determination of location, direction, assimilation, and formation of a specific electoral area. Those had nothing to do with the determination of the electoral number. The only determinants for the specific numbers of electoral areas for a specific electoral district, zone, or region were mainly based on population and geography. As far as the electoral delimitation of the Constituent Assembly is concerned, the Constituency Delimitation Commission delimited 601 seats for the Constituent Assembly, with 240 for direct election ([8]), 335 for proportionate election, and 26 nominations, and the ratios of them were 40:56:4, respectively. The weightage system had been used as a statistical tool for the electoral delimitation, but what specific weightages were being used for which particular determinants was not clearly published. However, the assurance of balanced political participation for its MPs and a minimum of 2 electoral (Legislative) quotas for each district, etc., were its good aspects. The existence of some notable Gerrymandering or mal-proportioned electoral constituencies was definitely its weakness. Some traces of Gerrymandering (constitutional boundaries intentionally drawn for the benefit of one ruling or non-ruling political party at the expense of another) can be easily observed by seeing the figure of the then electoral delimitation. The maximum number of electoral areas was set for the highly populated Terai districts, the district of the capital city, and districts with metropolitan areas for the advantage of certain political parties. Whereas, the delimited electoral areas of Hilly and Himalayan districts were comparatively very minimal, which in fact contradicted the delimitation articles of the constitution 154. A.7, 154. A.8, 63.3.

As far as the current trend of the implemented electoral system—as per the Constitution of Nepal 2015—is concerned, the mixed electoral system has been constitutionally provisioned for the Federal Legislature and Provincial Assemblies. The Federal Parliament consists of two houses named the House of Representatives and the National Assembly. The House of Representatives consists of 275 MPs, with 165 MPs directly elected based on the FPTP electoral system from 165 electoral constituencies, and 110 MPs elected from the proportional representation electoral system. Thus, there are 165 delimited electoral areas for MPs from the FPTP stream and 110 PR delimited seats, considering the overall country as one electoral area. The upper house consists of 59 members, where 56 members are elected from an electoral college comprising members of the Provincial Assembly and chairpersons and vice-chairpersons of Village Councils and Mayors and Deputy Mayors of Municipal Councils, and 3 members, including at least one woman, are nominated by the President on the recommendation of the Government of Nepal {[12]—[12]}. As per the constitution, there are 7 states, 7 State Assemblies, and 7 governments. There is a constitutional provision for having a total of 550 MLAs. Out of 550, almost 330 seats are allocated for direct FPTP election and 220 for the PR election system for all 7 states.

The electoral parameters such as geography and population have been taken as primary parameters, whereas there are also other secondary parameters such as population density, geographic specificity, administrative and transportation convenience, and community and cultural aspects as per Article 286. (5), (6). The clearly published weightage system of 90:10 has been used for its primary parameters of population & geographies. The question might arise: is the weightage ratio of 90:10 rational as per the constitutional provision of Article 286 (5)?

(5) The Constituency Delimitation Commission, while delimiting the constituencies in accordance with this Article, shall, based on population and geography, maintain, as far as practicable, the equal ratio or proportionality between geography, population, and the number of members.

([12]—[12])

Similarly, it remains silent regarding the question of how the delimitation procedure weighted its other secondary parameters. Anyway, for the moment, we can say that the commission utilized the secondary parameters only for the spatial, directional, and areal composition of each electoral constituency, but not to determine the numerical dimension of the electoral constituencies.

And, whatever model the Constituency Delimitation Commission of Nepal has implemented in the name of this proportion of weightage system has not only made it a population-dominated delimitation but has also accordingly transferred it to a completely imperfect, biased, and un-inclusive distribution of electoral boundaries. It has provided the maximum electoral areas for the Terai region, even undermining the other 80% of geographies named the Hilly and Himalayan regions.

People have interpreted CDC’s report from various angles. If you make population the main basis, you will reach one conclusion. If you take geography into account, you will present a different picture. As a student of geography, I would say the report is unfair to our hill and mountain regions.

([57])

To be a little more specific, the Delimitation Commission has provided a total of almost 135 MPs (78—FPTP and 57—PR) for the Terai region out of 275 seats. That means almost 51.45% from the Proportionate Representation System and 49.09% on average for both FPTP & PR systems. Similarly, around 51.45% from the PR system and an average of 49% (269 seats) for both PR and FPTP systems of a total of 550 MLAs have been delimited for Terai districts. In contrast, the proportionate area of the Terai is only around 20% of the total area of Nepal. Approximately 80% of the geography of Nepal, most specifically the Hilly and Himalayan electoral districts, has been totally under-represented ([76]). The administrative district boundaries have been completely ignored, and the previous concept of “at least not less than 2 electoral areas for each district irrespective of population size” in earlier electoral practices has been entirely disregarded and replaced with the concept of “at least not less than 1 electoral area” for each district. In the course of making electoral delimitation “equal representation”, the concept of “equitable representation” has been undermined. Geographically very large 35 districts of Hilly and Himalayan regions have received only a single electoral constituency for each district due to gerrymandering or biased, unequal, and inequitable or non-inclusive distribution of electoral delimitation.

This electoral delimitation, in fact, overlooks the principle of “equitable representation”, without which political system representation cannot be truly inclusive. However, the baseline for electoral boundaries should vary according to the specific characteristics of population distribution and geographic context, in order to align with “equitable representation”. Therefore, constitutional provisions across various jurisdictions permit a range of acceptable deviations from the population baseline, varying from 0% to as high as 61.9% in current practice worldwide. For instance, constitutional tolerance limits vary across jurisdictions: approximately 15% in Armenia, Germany, and the Czech Republic; between 15% and 24% in Germany under certain conditions; around 30% in Singapore; and up to 61.9% in Canada ([1]). These limits are designed to balance equitable representation with considerations such as population distribution, geographic size, and challenges. However, the appropriateness, suitability, and representative fairness of these deviation thresholds remain subjects of ongoing study and debate. In fact, the permissible percentage of deviation is generally determined by the distribution and concentration of the population. Thus, allowable deviations may range widely, potentially from 0% to 90%, depending on contextual factors. Accordingly, how such deviations are calibrated in relation to alternative determinants—primarily geography, along with other secondary considerations—through additive and deductive statistical principles remains a key area of concern. However, in the context of electoral delimitation in Nepal, this dimension of permissible exceptional deviation does not appear to have been adequately understood or applied. Consequently, under the rubric of “equal representation”, the principle of “equitable representation” is significantly undermined. To talk about adjustment of “equitable representation” through weightage system seems almost impossible due to its single-dimensional operating nature. Whereas, quite a bit of criticism has also been expressed regarding the delimitation report of the Constituency Delimitation Commission for being completely Terai-oriented. They have blamed it for ignoring the basic principles of impartiality, transparency, non-discrimination, representativeness, and equality in the course of basing only on population. The principle of “impartiality” has been completely ignored, and “distribution of population” has been entirely dominated by only prioritizing the “number of people”.

That means the authority that determines electoral constituencies must first be impartial. This is where we failed. The officials inducted into CDC were biased towards the political parties that nominated them. The second mistake they made was that they focused only on the number of people, not their distribution. As a result, hills and mountains lost seats. Most hill districts lost one seat each.

([57])

The concepts of “geography encompasses both the place and people”, “inextricable relationship between a man and geography”, “the very nature of population is to increase but not the geography” and “the availability of multiple forms of geography or natures and the scope it provides for a human journey of development” have been rejected.

You cannot limit a person to a fixed geography. However, this aspect of geography was overlooked while demarcating electoral constituencies.

([57])

In fact, we can imagine a person with geography but not without geography or nature. Similarly, we can’t limit a person to a fixed geography. A person can be local and at the same time by-local or multi-local, but he can never be without local. The density of it might be different from other locals and can be decreased or increased in the course of time. However, all types of necessary social, political, and governing structures are naturally the most inevitable part of it. Thus, there have been provisions for having electoral districts, or provincial or state-level electoral areas, with constitutionally defined specific electoral quotas.

In addition, this ratio of the weightage system, according to many critics, is making the whole delimitation entirely population-dominated delimitation. However, we could make it more farsighted and inclusive. Anyway, there are many models of delimitation within the weightage system. But no one can define the precise best single model of delimitation for delimiting boundaries, as Handley concluded in his research paper “Challenging the Norms and Standards of Election Administration: Boundary Delimitation” in the year 2007 by saying “There is no single best model for delimiting constituency boundaries” ([26]).

He concludes his research findings by stating that there is no well-defined, precise, best single model for delimiting the boundaries. However, it is very important to establish precise rules for the process that are flexible for both mature and transitional democracies.

([14])

Almost all available contemporary modern delimitation systems employ this weight-based weightage system that assigns only one predetermined weight to various determinants of multiple contexts and statuses. This inevitably raises questions about the rationale underlying such weight assignment and how changes in one determinant should be reconciled with changes in others. Rather than allowing the relationships among determinants to emerge from their naturally occurring proportions, the reliance on only one predetermined ratio for overall available statuses may therefore raise questions about the delimitation process. This is what, actually, the CPoD (Comprehensive Principle of Delimitation) raises and proposes—the natural automation system called AODS (Automatic Objective Determination System)—to address these discrepancies for appropriate electoral constituency delimitation ([73]).

Thus, it is clear that there is no as such availability of a perfect and precise model of delimitation, that has not only signaled for the maximum chances of occurrence of delimitation discrepancies but also equally further indirectly paved the way for the scope of innovative efforts for further development of the delimitation system and model. In this situation, there is scope and need for research for the identification of a further new model of delimitation.

Therefore, this research study has the urgency of scope and strong rationale for conducting further research efforts to coin a more innovative version of electoral delimitation that has maximum flexibility for addressing “equitable representation” along with “equal representation” from highly populated centres and their surroundings to rarely populated peripheral geographies.

 3. Methodology, Theoretical Framework, and Data

Coming up to the Methodology, it is clear that the constituency delimitation of Nepal has a lot of drawbacks due to its currently implemented weightage system of 90:10. Upon the availability of these issues, the research raises the capital question—what is its solution? This is exactly what this research is trying to explore. To do so, the research first attempts to utilize the methodology to identify the key factors of the weightage system behind these issues, and then tries to seek the solution while remaining within the same weightage system; and, if needed, it further engages in the potential innovation of a new and innovative delimitation system called “Comprehensive Electoral Constituency Delimitation (CECD)” backed by the “Comprehensive Principle of Delimitation (CPoD)”. In doing so, it utilizes various theories such as—Handley’s Theory of Electoral Delimitation, Weightage System Theory of Electoral Delimitation, Theory of Statistics, Theory of Equality, Equity, and Inclusion in Electoral Delimitation, Gerrymandering, Structuralist Theory of Governing Structure, Consensus & Majoritarian Theory of Powell, Structuralism and Textualistic Theory of Constitution and Intentionalism, Forced Migration Theory & Compulsive Migration Theory, Ratio Theory, Normative Theory, etc. Thus, the research implements these theories not only to identify the factors behind the issues but also utilizes them for further innovation of a new and more dynamic delimitation system (Figure 1). However, this research, being very aware of the privileged length and word limits, is fundamentally employing parameters established by the theories to identify the factors behind the electoral constituency delimitation issues and propose the Comprehensive Constituency Delimitation Model as a rational solution rather than completely going through one-to-one detailed, theoretical, empirics-based statistical procedures in exactly the same way as the specific theorists had once gone through in the course of founding their respective theories. In fact, the “Comprehensive Electoral Constituency Delimitation (CECD)” is backed by its own innovative “Comprehensive Statistics of Balance and Flexibility for Inclusion, Equality, and Equitable Distribution and Representation”. In this sense, “Comprehensive Electoral Constituency Delimitation (CECD)”, “Comprehensive Statistics of Balance and Flexibility for Inclusion, Equality, and Equitable Distribution and Representation”, and “Validity Status Determination System (VSDS)” are the innovations of this research. Anyway, below is the theoretical framework, and further down below to it is the conceptual framework that eases the key task of the theoretical framework in or-der to achieve the goal of this research paper (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Theoretical framework.

3.1. Conceptual Framework

The statistical tool to make CECD as per the spirit of the comprehensive principle is Comprehensive Statistics of Balance and Flexibility. It statistically ensures the Absolute Non-Discriminatory Operating Mechanism (ANDOM) and the Automatic Objective Determination System (AODS). To acknowledge specifically how the comprehensive statistical operating mechanism operates at the determinant or variable level, the following conceptual framework has been designed to address all forms of deviations or diversities, from normal deviation or diversity to exceptional and then up to extreme exceptional deviations or diversities. The conceptual framework very explicitly expresses how it incorporates the available deviations or diversities to ensure the overall electoral delimitation is more inclusive, equal, and equitable in terms of political representation and form of governance (Table 2).

Table 2. Specific conceptual framework.

Specific Conceptual Framework for Constituency Delimitation
Tendency of Constituency Building Based on Parameters’ Dynamics: Baseline Constituency Validation Status
Population of Nepal Total area of Nepal in km 2 Total Area as per Local Units in km 2 Total number of constituencies Average Population & Average Geographic Area per Constituency Flexibility
Normal (Addible or Deductible) Flexibility Priory Condition Operational Methods
Minimum Normal Addable or Deductible Maximum Normal Addable or Deductible
A or D Unit (±25%) TSoP & G with AU and DU of ±25% A Unit = >25% & <100%; D Unit = >25% & <44.35% TSoP& G with AU of 100% or DU of 44.35% *P > G or G > P @ Deductible Method, ** Anyone is negatively (-) > the other @ Addible Method. Deductible Method @ P > G or G > P, Addible Method @ P is negatively (-) > G or G negatively >P, Average Method @ both P&G are higher or lower than the average value.
Total Sum with Addable 25% (>0% & <25%) TR with Deductible 25% (>0% & <25%) Total Sum with Addable 100% (>25% & <100%) TR with Deductible 44.35% (>25% & <44.35%)
APpC AGpC M(i)PpC M(i)GpC (KM 2 ) TSoM(i)PpC TSoM(i)GpC (KM 2 ) TRSoM(i)PpC TRSoM(i)GpC (KM 2 ) M(x)PpC M(x)GpC TSoM(x)PpC TSoM(x)GpC TRSoM(x)PpC TRSoM(x)GpC
29164578 147181 137033 165 176755 830.50 44189 207.63 220944 1038.13 132566 622.88 176755 830.50 353510 1661 98364 462.17
2121060 9966 2297815 10796.50 6186 29.07 353510 1661 530265 2491.50 59478 279.46 *P + G or P ± ∆P + G ± ∆G = 1 CU, Where, ∆G = ƒ(∆P) or ∆P = ƒ(∆G), ∵ The ratio (:) of ∆G → ∆P or ∆P → ∆G depends on the ratio, i.e ., what ratio ∆G is positively or negatively higher to ensure equal and equitable representation at the same time.
Populationof Nepal Area of Nepal in km 2 Total Area as per Local Units in km 2 Total number of constituencies APpC AGpC M(x)EPpC M(x)EGpC (KM 2 ) TSoM(x)EPpC TSoM(x)EGpC TRSoM(X)EPpC TRSoM(X)GApC M(i)EPpC M(i)EGpC TSoM(i)EPpC TSoM(i)EGUpC TRSoM(i)EPpC TRSoM(i)EGpC
Average Population & Average Geographic Area per Constituency A Unit = >200 and <1200%; D Unit = >66.35% & <97.25% TS with Addable 1200% (>200% & <1200%) TR with Deductible = 96.8% (>66.35% & <97.25%) AU = >100% & <200%; DU = >44.35% & <66.35% Total Sum with Addable 200% (>100% & <200%) TR with Deductible 66.35% (>44.35% & <66.35%)
TSoP & G with AU 1200% or DU of 97.25% TSoP & G with AU 200% or DU of 66.35%
Maximum (Extreme) Exceptional Addible or Deductible Minimum Exceptional Addible or Deductible Operational Dynamics
Exceptional (Addible or Deductible) Flexibility
Exceptional Flexibility
Tendency of Constituency Building Based on Parameters’ Dynamics: Baseline Constituency Validation Status
Abbreviations of Technical Terminology Abbreviations of Technical Terminologies
TSoP & G Total Sum of Population & Geography TSoM(x)PpC Total Sum of Maximum Population Per Constituency
APpC Average Population Per Constituency TSoM(x)GpC Total Sum of Maximum Geography Per Constituency
AGpC Average Geography Per Constituency TRSoM(x)PpC Total Remaining Sum of Maximum Population Per Constituency
M(x)PpC Maximum Population Per Constituency TRSoM(x)GpC Total Remaining Sum of Maximum Geography Per Constituency
M(x)GpC Maximum Geography Per Constituency TSoM(i)PpC Total Sum of Minimum Population Per Constituency
M(i)PpC Minimum Population Per Constituency TSoM(i)GpC Total Sum of Minimum Geography Per Constituency
M(i)GpC Minimum Geography Per Constituency TRSoM(i)PpC Total Remaining Sum of Minimum Population Per Constituency
M(i)EPpC Minimum Exceptional Population Per Constituency TRSoM(i)GpC Total Remaining Sum of Minimum Geography Per Constituency
M(i)EGpC Minimum Exceptional Geography Per Constituency TSoM(i)EPpC Total Sum of Minimum Exceptional Population Per Constituency
M(x)EPpC Maximum Exceptional Population Per Constituency DU Deductible Unit
M(x)EGpC Maximum Exceptional Geography Per Constituency AU Addable Unit
G Geography CU Constituency Unit

The deviations, it includes, range from normal deviation to exceptional deviation. Within normal, there are further minimum normal and maximum normal deviations. The exceptional deviation includes minimum exceptional to maximum (extreme) exceptional deviations. In fact, the proposed Comprehensive Electoral Constituency Delimitation has broader flexibility that includes a very dynamic mechanism of statistics encompassing tools from Average Statistics to Broader Deviational Tools. The following are the scale-based specific deviational and average tools used by this Comprehensive Constituency Delimitation.

3.1.1. Average Flexibility Case, Principle, and Tool

It is such a tool and principle that only considers or deals with the average value. In most general cases, the flexibility within it is almost none. For instance, as mentioned earlier above (Table 1), the population of 176755 and the geographic area of 830.5 KM2 (considering the total area based on the Local Units) are the average population and geographic area for an electoral area to be an average electoral constituency. Anyway, the total population of Nepal and the geographic area covered by local units are 29164578 and 137032.6 KM2 respectively.

3.1.2. Normal Flexibility Case of Deviation or Diversity, and Respective Principle & Tool

The Normal Flexibility Tool and Principle is such a principle or tool that considers and deals with the issue that does have normal flexibility. It has a conscience and belief that the majority of the world is filled with normal deviation and diversity. It opines that the deviation is part of nature and reality, thus needing a system for its good governance. It mainly emphasizes the term majority when it comes to addressing deviation; thus, it mostly considers, talks, emphasizes, and justifies the majority status for sure normal deviation. It believes in addressing majority deviational cases with its own principle and according tool of majority inclusion. It believes that the real world is deviated than the average narrative information we have been taught for. Thus, it trusts in the inclusion of this normal diversity and deviation for the creation of a better world. Anyway, the Normal Flexibility Principle considers the deviation from 0% - 100% as addible and from 0% - 44.35% as deductible in its determinants. In other words, up to 100% addible means that one of any determinants is 200% the size of its own average guided value, because a 100% addible value is an added or additional value of 100% on the average base value, which is always 100%, and the accumulation of them tends to 200%. Similarly, 44.35% deductible means any one of the indicators is 44.35% less than the average value, which means 100% - 44.35% (Average Value - Deductible Value) definitely tends to express that the position of a particular determinant is a percentage status of 55.65%. Hence, accumulating these two statements of 100% addible and 44.35% deductible means if any one determinant has 100% addible, then 44.35% becomes the deductible for the other second determinant, which means 55.65% will be the minimum optimum value on the second determinant to become a constituency. Anyway, upon consideration of its scale of flexibility and balance principle, it is further divided into two categories.

1. Minimum Normal Flexibility Case of Deviation or Diversity, and Respective Principle & Tool

2. Maximum Normal Flexibility Case of Deviation or Diversity, and Respective Principle & Tool

1.Minimum Normal FlexibilityCase of Deviation or Diversity,and Respective Principle & Tool

The Minimum Normal Flexibility Principle and Tool is believed to consider, cover, and justify the deviations and diversity that the Average Flexibility Principle generally does not address. It regards diversity as normal but a majority in existence. Therefore, it emphasizes majority inclusion. Thus, it has more flexibility in comparison to the rigidity of the Average Flexibility Principle. Therefore, it covers deviations or diversity from 0% up to 25% for addible values and 0% - 25% for deductible values on the average value. Thus, the tolerable limit of it is from 0% - 25% for the minimum normal addible and from 0% - 25% as the minimum normal deductible limit. This means, in the case of the optimum addible value of 25% on the average value, the maximum deductible value will be 25% deductible (25%) in the average value. In other words, in the case of up to 25% addible in one determinant, it provides the other determinant with the flexibility of 25% deductible, which means a minimum of 75% (100% - 25%) for another determinant to be a constituency.

2.Maximum Normal FlexibilityCase of Deviation or Diversity,and Respective Principle & Tool

The Maximum Normal Flexibility Principle and Tool is believed to consider, cover, and justify the deviations and diversity only from above the diversity tolerance limit of the Minimum Normal Flexibility Principle up to 100% for addible and 44.35% for deductible values. Thus, its tolerable limit is from 25% - 100% for the maximum normal addible and from 25% - 44.35% for the maximum normal deductible limit. That means, in the case of the optimum value of 100%, the maximum deductible value will be 44.35%, which is derived from the deductible value of the minimum normal deductible (25%) by adding 19.35%. In other words, in the case of up to 100% addible in one determinant, it provides the other determinant the flexibility of 44.35% deductible, which means a minimum of 55.65% (100% - 44.35%) for another determinant to be a constituency.

3.1.3. Exceptional (Maximum and Minimum) Flexibility Case of Deviation or Diversity and Respective Principle & Tool

The Exceptional Flexibility Principle and tool is such a tool and principle that does not only believe that the universe of mathematics or any other fields is so diverse, vivid, and unique, with full deviations, that the Average Principle with the Normal Flexibility Principle, as they are also limited by certain limitations, also fails to address extreme addible or deductible values most probably from 100% - 1200% addible and 66.35% - 97.25% deductible values. In this situation of inability of the Average Flexibility and even Normal Flexibility Principles, the Exceptional Flexibility Principle and its corresponding tool will come into effective operational enforcement in order to address the principle of balance among the actual availability of exceptionally diverse parameters of the determinants. From 100% - 1200% is addible diversity and deviation; whereas, the deductible diversity and deviation it covers is from 66.35% - 97.25%. Therefore, it believes in equitable inclusion or representation. Anyway, based on the scale of flexibility and the balance principle, it can be further divided into the following 2 categories:

1. Minimum Exceptional Flexibility Case of Deviation or Diversity, and Respective Principle & Tool

2. Maximum Exceptional Flexibility Case of Deviation or Diversity, and Respective Principle & Tool

1) Minimum Exceptional FlexibilityCase of Deviation or Diversity, and Respective Principle & Tool

The Minimum Exceptional Flexibility Principle and Tool is believed to consider, cover, and justify the deviations and diversity only above the diversity tolerance limit of the Maximum Normal Flexibility Principle, up to 200% for addible and 66.35% for deductible values. Thus, its tolerable limit is from 100% - 200% for the minimum exceptional addible, and from 44.35% - 66.35% for the minimum exceptional deductible limit. This means that, in the case of an optimum value of 200%, the maximum deductible value will be 66.35%, which is derived from the deductible value of the maximum normal deductible (44.35%) by adding 22%. In other words, in the case of up to 200% addible in one determinant, the other determinant is provided the flexibility of 66.35% deductible, meaning a minimum of 33.65% (100% - 66.35%) for another determinant to be a constituency.

2) Maximum(Extreme) Exceptional FlexibilityCase of Deviation or Diversity, and the Respective Principle & Tool

The Maximum (Extreme) Exceptional Flexibility Principle and Tool trust to consider, cover, and justify the deviations and diversity just above the diversity tolerance limit of the Minimum Exceptional Flexibility Principle up to 1200% for addible and 97.25% for deductible values. Thus, the tolerable limit is from 200% - 1200% for maximum exceptional addible, and from 66.35% - 97.25% for the maximum exceptional deductible limit. That means, in the case of the optimum value of 1200%, the maximum deductible value will be 97.25%, which is derived from the deductible value of Minimum Exceptional Deductible (66.35%) by adding 30.90%. In other words, in the case of up to 1200% addible in one determinant, it provides the other determinant the flexibility of 97.25% deductible, which means a minimum of 2.75% (100% - 97.25%) for another determinant to be a constituency. Anyway, the upper deductible limit of 97.25% and the upper addible limit of 1200 are subject to change as per the specificity of each country.

 3.2. Statistical Operational Mechanism of Comprehensive Constituency Delimitation

Anyway, the Comprehensive Electoral Constituency Delimitation System (CECD System) has its own operational statistical methodology, ranging from the very basic Average Mean Method (for all average scenarios) up to Addible and Deductible Methods (for all Flexible Statistics Operational Mechanisms for the management of deviational and diversity aspects in Comprehensive Delimitation), as follows below:

1. Average Mean Method,

2. Deductible Method, and

3. Addible Method.

3.2.1. Average Mean Method

The Average Mean Method is the statistical method of using the statistical mechanism of average mean to cover all the average scenarios. It is also the foundational base for the further derivation of Addible and Deductible Statistics Operational Mechanism. Anyway, the following below is the derivation of the key statistical formula for the calculation of electoral delimitation.

Total No. of MPs in the House of Representatives = 165

Total Number of Constituency Electoral Areas (n) = 165

Total Area of Nepal (A’) = 147,181 km2

Total Area by Local Units of Nepal (A) = 137032.59 KM2

Total Population (P) = 29,164,578

Average Population for each constituency (μ) = ∑ P n

Average Population for each constituency (μ) = ∑ P n

= 29164578/165

= 176755

Average Geographic Area for each constituency ( α ¯ ) = ∑ A n

Average Geographic Area for each constituency ( α ¯ ) = ∑ A n

= 137032.59/165

= 830.5 KM2

3.2.2. Deductible Method

The Deductible Method is the major, dominant, and dynamic method; the Comprehensive Electoral Constituency Delimitation enforces it to address all the deviations, diversities, and flexibilities of available actual determinants. It is, in fact, a new statistical operational mechanism with the strength of dynamism to address deviations ranging from normal to exceptional and extremely exceptional status. This is also exactly part of one of the statistical operational innovations and research achievements that this research presents. The Deductible Method is the method of identifying the deductible value by determining and utilizing the size of the additional large value and converting it to the accordingly deductible value, and then identifying the minimum determinant size needed for a constituency in that particular deviational or diversity case. The following is the derivation of the key statistical formulas for the calculation of electoral delimitation using the Deductible Method.

District Total Area = (A1)

District Total Population = (P1)

Deductible (D) = 0% - 97.25%

(In case of less than average condition)

Addible (Ad) = 0 - 1200%

(In case of the availability of a population or geography larger than the average)

Nearest achieved deductible (d1) = 25% - 66.35%

(Note: The upper deductible limit of 97.25% is subject to change depending on the specificity of the country)

Upper but not fully achieved deductible (d2) = 44.35% - 97.25%

Nearest achieved Addible (Ad1) = 25% - 200%

Upper but not fully achieved Addible (Ad2) = 100% - 1200%

Remaining Addible Number after d1 (Ra) = Ad − Ad1

Deductible (D) = d1 + {(Ad − Ad1)/(Ad2 − Ad1)} * (d2 − d1)

Or,

= d 1 + ( A d − A d1 ) ( A d2 − A d1 ) × ( d 2 − d 1 )

Valid % for Population or Geography (V) in Deductible Method = 100% - D%

Valid Population or Geography to be a Constituency = α ¯ * V% or μ * V%

α ¯ = A 1 ( α ¯ × V % )     or     P 1 ( μ ¯ × V % )

3.2.3. Addible Method

The Addible Method is another important method of Comprehensive Constituency Delimitation after its Deductible and Average Method. It is also used to address all the deviations, diversities, and flexibility of available actual determinants. The Addible Method is the method of identifying the addible value by determining and utilizing the size of the value less than the average determinant and converting it to the corresponding addible value, then identifying the minimum determinant size needed to be a constituency in that particular deviational or diversity case by adding it to the average value of 100%. The only difference between the Addible Method and the Deductible Method is that the Addible Method is used especially in the prior condition where the value and weight of the lesser determinant are much less than the higher additional figured determinant. The following is the derivation of the key statistical formulas for the calculation of electoral delimitation using the Addible Method.

District Total Area = (A1)

District Total Population = (P1)

Deductible (D) = 0 - 97.25%

(In case of less than average condition)

Addible (Ad) = 0 - 1200%

(In case of the availability of a population or geography bigger than the average)

Nearest achieved deductible (d1) = 25% - 66.35%

(Note: the upper deductible limit of 97.25% is subject to change according to the specificity of the country)

Upper but not fully achieved deductible (d2) = 44.35% - 97.25%

Nearest achieved Addible (Ad1) = 25% - 200%

Upper but not fully achieved Addible (Ad2) = 100% - 1200%

Remaining Deductible Number after Ad1 (Rd) = D – d1

Addible (Ad) = Ad1 + {(D – d1)/(d2 – d1)} * (Ad2 – Ad1)

= A d 1 + ( D − d 1 ) ( d 2 − d 1 ) × ( A d 2 − A d1 )

Valid % for Population or Geography (V) in Addible Method = (100 + Ad)%

α ¯ = A 1 ( α ¯ × V % )     or     P 1 ( μ ¯ × V % ) 3.3. Validity Status Determination System

In the electoral delimitation process, validation is an important step that ensures the electoral delimitation is a combination of consistency, deliverability, inclusivity, equality & equitability, and respective representativeness. It is, in fact, the process of building a perfect and complete electoral delimitation and justifying its delimitation justifiably after its formulation. The validity status is based on percentage, as the Ad and D themselves are also based on percentage. Anyway, the Validity Status Percentage (%) is the available actual higher load-carrying addible or deductible percentage (%) status of any higher weightage determinant with respect to Addible and Deductible Statistic derived valid percentage (%). Here, the percentage (%) of addible and deductible status percentage (%) are derived from the determinant with respect to the average determinant (μ or α ¯ ). Thus, the derivation of the key statistic formula for the calculation of Validity Status of Electoral Constituency delimitation is as follows below.

Total Federal Constituency Area for the FCA Unit = A2

Total Population of that particular FCA Unit = P2

Average Population for the FCA Unit = μ

Average Area for an FC = α ¯

Addible (always in %) = Ad

Deductible (Always in %) = D

The Validity Status % = A 2 α ¯ 100 + A d     or     100 − D     or,     P 2 μ 100 + A d     or     100 − D

Thus, the Validity Status % = A 2 α ¯ 100 + A d     or     100 − D     or,     P 2 μ 100 + A d     or     100 − D

where 100 + Ad is taken, if we have Addible value. Whereas 100 − D is utilized

when there is a Deductible value. Similarly, A 2 α ¯ is utilized when the value or weightage of the available actual area of the particular constituency unit is higher. Whereas P 2 μ is utilized when the value or weightage of the available actual population of the particular constituency unit is higher than the other determinant.

In addition, the validity status is composed of four categories named “Absolute Valid”, “Valid”, “Medium Valid”, and “Lower Valid”. Certain percentages are given in interval form for these four categories. These percentages are the acceptable deviations on any one determinant for cluster specificity of the above-mentioned conceptual framework. The validity status is, thus, based on these minimum normal addible and deductible, maximum normal addible and deductible, minimum exceptional addible and deductible, maximum exceptional addible and deductible, and average determinants value. The percentages of the below validity status are, in fact, the acceptable percentages on the percentage of a lower determinant mentioned in these broader clusters. And, in the context of average determinants value, both of the determinants can be lower, or it can be higher, or any one of the determinants can be lower or higher. The validation status the research follows is also the same as below. These are all the parameters of primary determinants we are talking about. But for the parameters of other secondary determinants, as they are strictly associated with the spatial and directional dimension of delimitation that might result in gerrymandering or mala-proportioned electoral delimitation, they should strictly follow the parameters of non-gerrymandering, equal and equitable representational electoral delimitation, and the below flexible parameters of validity status are not for them (Table 3). Anyway, this overall system of validation is, in fact, the Validity Status Determination System (VSDS).

Table 3. Validation chart.

Validity Status Absolutely Valid Valid Medium Valid Lower Valid Including Constitutional Provision Validity Status
Variation Interval <100% case of +Ve 100% - 82.25% 82.25% - 60.5% 60.5% - 33.25% 33.25% - 1% <100% in the case of +Ve Variation Interval
>100% in the case of −ve 100% - 117.25% 117.25% - 139.5% 139.5% - 166.75% 166.75% - 200% >100% in the case of −ve
Validity Status Absolutely Valid Valid Medium Valid Lower Valid Including Constitutional Provision Validity Status

In addition, to show how the validity status is represented, let us take an example from Area 1 of Rupandehi District in the empirical analysis section below. The validity details for the delimited constituency show “V-M(i)EAdD:AM⇒AdM”. Here, “V” stands for “Valid”, “M(i)EAdD” stands for “Minimum Exceptional Addible Deductible”, which means it is valid from the Minimum Exceptional Addible Deductible cluster. “AM⇒AdM” stands for First “Average Method” to Final “Addible Method”. The First “Average Method” is utilized during the numerical determination of the constituency for the district at the beginning procedure of the CECD, and then the “Addible Method” is finally utilized during the spatial, directional, locational, or unit-wise final formation of the constituency delimitation. In this way, the validation details not only indicate the specific validity status but also show how the delimitation was carried out using specific methods in its specific track of delimitation. Thus, it is a track-driven validation system. In this case, the validity status percentage is 70.18%, and it lies within the “Valid” validation cluster’s interval of 82.25% - 60.5%; thus, it is “Valid” from the “Valid Cluster”, which means “nicely valid”.

Validity Status Determination System-Specific Operating Rule

Except for the rule mentioned for the district-wise numeral determination of FCA through the Average Statistics Operation rule, both the remaining Addible as well as Deductible Statistics Operational Rules are operative as per the conditions and manner mentioned below in the Rules of Statistics Operational Mechanism. However, for the final actual derivation of the unit-based FCA of the Average Method derived constituencies, these are operative according to the higher value or the higher weightage-carrying determinant with its Deductible Statistics Method. In contrast, for a negatively higher value or negatively higher weightage-carrying status, the validation status system is operational as per the Addible Statistics Method. This means that even if both determinants are positively higher than the average value of determinants ( μ or α ¯ , the VSDS is operative as per the Deductible Method condition. Whereas, if both determinants are negatively higher (that is, smaller) than the average value of determinants ( μ or α ¯ , the VSDS is operative as per the Addible Method condition.

3.4. Rules of Statistics: Operational Mechanism of Comprehensive Electoral Constituency Delimitation

The Statistics Operational Mechanism of Comprehensive Electoral Constituency Delimitation consists of all Average Mean, Addible, and Deductible Statistical Operations for more dynamic, inclusive, equitable, and equal electoral constituency delimitation. Thus, the question may arise as to what particular statistics operational method it uses under what particular conditions. For its easy grasp, the research has developed its own operating rules as mentioned below.

1. Average Statistics Operational Rule - The Average Mean Method is generally in operation if both of the determinants are either higher or lower. That means both determinants should be higher under higher conditions and should be lower under lower conditions for the Average Method of Comprehensive Constituency Delimitation to be operative. It is utilized only for the numerical determination of constituencies at the district level at the initial phase. However, after numerical determination and for the spatial determination or one-to-one constituency delimitation, it uses only the two Addible and Deductible Methods.

2. Deductible Statistics Operational Rule - The Deductible Statistics Method is generally in operation if either one determinant or the weightage of the determinant is higher and the other one is less than the average determinants μ and α - . The dominant statistics operational method in Comprehensive Delimitation, which the research uses, is certainly the Deductible Statistics Method.

3. Addible Statistics Operational Rule - The Addible Statistics Operational Method is generally in effect if any one of the determinants is negatively higher than the other positive one. In other words, if the figure or weightage of the negative of any determinant is higher than the positive one, the only operational option for the Comprehensive Constituency Delimitation is the Addible Statistics Operational Method.

3.5. Operational Roadmap, Specifically, for the Comprehensive Electoral Constituency Delimitation

The Operational Roadmap is essential when it comes to delimitation-related research. It will keep the delimitation research efforts on track and in the right direction. The following is the roadmap of the Comprehensive Electoral Constituency Delimitation.

1. Identification of the current issues and drawbacks of electoral constituency delimitation backed by only one available existing weightage system. Then, on the basis of their discrepancies and problems, the research proposes a new model of Electoral Constituency Delimitation called Comprehensive Electoral Constituency Delimitation (CECD), which has a Comprehensive Delimitation Mechanism to address the current issues effectively and efficiently in order to formulate a more dynamic, transparent, inclusive, equal, and equitable constituency delimitation.

2. Delimiting the total number of overall countrywide and district-wise constituencies—From the constitutional provision, the research draws the total electoral areas. It further continues by determining the Average Population (μ) and Average Geographical Area ( α ¯ ) based on the available total electoral constituencies, total countrywide population, and the total geographical area covered by Local Units. Furthermore, it identifies and delineates the number of district constituencies utilizing the average population (μ) and the total geographical area covered by Local Units ( α ¯ ). For the determination of the number of constituencies, two primary determinants are considered; whereas, for spatial and directional determination of constituencies, it considers other secondary determinants such as administrative and transportation proximity, district and international borders, communal and cultural characteristics, etc.

3. Drawing Actual One-to-One Electoral Constituency Delimitation within the district—After determining the number of district-wise constituencies, the research further proceeds to actual constituency delimitation based on each corresponding district’s allocated number of constituencies. Here, the focus of electoral constituency delimitation is also on spatial and directional dimensions. Thus, it considers all of the parameters of both primary and secondary determinants. In fact, it is the primary stage of electoral delimitation where actual electoral delimitation is drawn. Furthermore, it is the same step where Gerrymandering mostly occurs. Therefore, the delimiter should be very attentive here.

4. Establishment of the “Validity Status” for the Justification of the drawn Comprehensive Electoral Constituency Delimitation—After determining and delimiting the constituency, it further goes ahead for its corresponding validity status.

 3.6. Equality, Equity, Inclusion, Malapportionment, or Gerrymandering as the Measurable Criteria

The CPoD has its own specific theoretical and conceptual framework that makes equality, equity, and inclusion as the measurable criteria. For instance, the measurable scaling that is equal to Average Area or Population per Constituency ( α ¯ or μ) is “Absolute Equal” in terms of constituency delimitation, and such a kind of delimitation is “Absolute Equal Delimitation”. Whereas, the scaling that is equal to up to ± 25% addible or deductible value on the α ¯ or μ refers to “Substitutional Equal Delimitation”, and it is derived using both addible and deductible methods. Similarly, from “25% - 44.35%” deductible value on α ¯ or μ is “Minimum Equitable Value”, which is derived utilizing the “Addible Method” considering the addible interval from “25% - 100%”. This delimitation is called “Minimum Equitable Delimitation”. Again, from “44.35% - 66.35%” deductible value on α ¯ or μ is “Medium Equitable Value”, which is derived using the “Addible Method” considering the addible interval of “100% - 200%” addible. This delimitation is called “Medium Equitable Delimitation”. Similarly, from “66.35% - 97.25%” deductible value on α ¯ or μ tends to “Maximum or Extreme Equitable Value”, which is derived using the Addible Method considering the addible interval of Addible Method “200% - 1200%”. This delimitation is called “Maximum or Extreme Equitable Delimitation”. In the same way, from the perspective of statistical operating methodology, even if the very nature of the Deductible Method apparently does not look equitable as it identifies the ratio of deductible value, which outwardly seems to be comparatively smaller in ratio than its already available given higher ratio or values, it is in fact equitable. Because by nature—provided the availability of a higher value and utilizing it, the small value is to be identified—thus the available higher values of the upcoming identified counter small value always remain many times higher in ratio to keep the spirit of equity. No matter what method we use, whether we use the addible method utilizing the given small values or the deductible method with higher value, the measurable essence of equity is always achieved.

Anyway, with the integrated values and corresponding tools of both equal and equitable delimitation, the value of inclusion or overall inclusive delimitation is achieved. Moreover, the CPoD, with its sophisticated statistics, makes it possible to measure the malapportionment or gerrymandering of both of its numerical or spatial dimension. In fact, the base parameters of CPoD play a major role in identifying the status of gerrymandering or malapportionment, as malapportionment and gerrymandering are assessed by comparison with the measurable parameters of CPoD.

3.7. Data

Anyway, the study is descriptive in nature and is based on secondary data. Thus, the utilized data are for sure quantitative and descriptive in nature, and are gathered and organized from various government wings such as the Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Local Affairs, Central Bureau of Statistics, Nepal Rastra Bank, Office of Company Registrar, Department of Industry, Nepal Chamber of Commerce, various professional associations, Election Commission, Constituency Delimitation Commission, Local Body Restructuring Commission, scholarly academic journals, journal articles, newspapers, and reports of international organizations like the World Bank, Asian Development Bank, UNDP, European Union, FATP, as well as national parliament subject committees. These data are not only collected on an individual basis but also arranged in a synthetic format so that we can have overall figurative statistics to overview the trend and status of these 9 years of implemented federalism in Nepal. In the course of doing so, the research develops various tables, charts, ratio and percentage trends, and statistical tools and diagrams in order to identify and analyze the status of the currently implemented constituency delimitation and its sustainability on the one hand; and, on the other, it also develops a new Comprehensive Electoral Constituency Delimitation System (CECD System) and redraws or delimits the constituency boundary as per it to ensure that the overall constituency delimitation is inclusive, equal, and equitable with sustainability. Thus, it is also following the normative model based on its concrete foundation of logic, theory, and optimization with fully informed and rational agents and its optimizing deliverables of its ideal benchmark.

4. Empirical Findings and Discussion

The paper has gone through assessing various indicators of Nepal based on the same parameters of all the theories, as mentioned earlier above in the theoretical framework, and has arrived at the following findings and brief analysis (Table 4).

Table 4.Findings and their brief analysis according to various disciplines and corresponding theories & their parameters.

Discipline Theories Parameters Findings and their brief analysis
Political Science, and Geography & Statistics Handley’s Theory ofElectoral Delimitation Impartiality, Equality, Representativeness, Non- discrimination, Transparency Nepalese Context of Gerrymandering or Biased Electoral De limit ation : The electoral delimitation of constituencies in many Terai districts—particularly Sarlahi, Mahottari, Saptari, Morang, Dhanusha, Dang, Banke, Kailali, and Kanchanpur—has often been cited as an example of gerrymandering. These boundary changes were designed primarily to benefit Terai (Madhesh)-centric political parties, as well as, to a lesser extent, mainstream political leaders and parties that rely heavily on ethnic Madheshi or Terai voter bases. Many critics argue that these constituency delimitations were deliberately designed to reflect and consolidate areas with predominantly Madheshi and Tharu populations in the Terai region. It has only focused on South-South directional or spatial occupancy of the electoral constituencies, despite being located on the very international country border with India, and the dominant population here ethnically belongs to India and has once or recently migrated from India ( Figure A1 & Figure A2 ).An illustrative example of alleged gerrymandering can be observed in the electoral delimitation of Sarlahi District, where Constituency No. 2 appears to have been drawn in a manner that concentrates the majority Madhesi population. Critics argue that this configuration provides an electoral advantage to Madhesi political leader Mahendra Raya Yadav. Under this constituency delimitation arrangement, Mahendra Raya Yadav contested and won the parliamentary seat as a candidate of the Rastriya Janata Party Nepal in the 2017 general election. He was subsequently re-elected to the House of Representatives in the 2022 election, this time representing the CPN (Maoist Centre). Earlier, in the 2013 Constituent Assembly election, he had secured election as a Constituent Assembly member on behalf of the Terai Madhesh Sadbhavana Party. These electoral successes are cited by critics as evidence of gerrymandering or mal-apportioned constituency delimitation. Another drawback of this particular instance of gerrymandering is that it has adversely affected the remaining three constituencies within the district ( Figure A1 ). In addition, in spite of Saptari district, there are also many other Terai districts like Mahottari (CAN - 3, impacting other CAs), Dhanusha (CAN - 2 & 3, impacting other CAs), Morang (a south-west constituency, impacting other CAs), Dang (CAN - 1, impacting other CAs), Banke (CAN - 2, impacting other CAs), Kailali (CAN - 1 & 5, impacting other CAs) and Kanchanpur (CAN - 1, impacting other CAs), etc., which have impacted the neighbouring constituencies within the districts. Source : [ 26 ] , [ 57 ] , [ 18 ] , etc.
International Context — America Practice 1 : As far as the electoral delimitation of constituencies in America is concerned, it is assumed to be a semi-traditional and semi-modern electoral delimitation: because, as a semi-traditional trait, almost all of its states have allocated constitutional responsibility solely to their congress members; and, as a semi-modern trait, some criteria and principles of delimitation are being maintained. There is no provision for the formation and mobilization of an independent Delimitation Commission except in a very few exceptional states ([ 14 ]) . To be more specific, the constitution of America and as per its Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549 (1946), Article I, Section 4, has given the full rights of delimitation to the Congress Members; very few states have a provision for an independent redistricting commission ([ 1 ]). The very few states in the US which have a provision for an independent redistricting commission still have, in most cases, micro-level influential space for political play. Even after that, the commission has to go through parliament for final approval ([ 26 ]).
Weightage System of Electoral Delimitation Population & Geography Nepalese context of the derogative weightage of 90 : 10, and gerrymandering : Maximum electoral constituencies, almost 49.09% of the total seats from both FPTP and PR electoral systems (135 MPs out of a total of 275 MPs and 269 MLAs out of 550 MLAs), have been provided to Terai alone, disregarding almost 80% of the geography of Nepal—Hilly & Himalaya regions—and their population. In the name of “equal representation,” the principle of “equitable representation” has been overlooked. Due to the gerrymandering or biased, unequal, inequitable, or non-inclusive distribution of electoral constituencies, almost geographically huge-sized 35 districts of Hilly and Himalaya regions have received only a single electoral constituency for each district. The earlier constitutional norm of guaranteeing at least two constituencies per district has been replaced with a minimum of one. The principle of “impartiality” has been completely undermined, and the “distribution of population” has been entirely ignored by only prioritizing the “number or concentration of population” ( Figure A2 ).It raises the questions:Who are outreached, ignored, deprived, and discriminated against? Is it the population of rural areas or people of urban areas? Or is it urban, Terai, or rural areas of rural hilly and Himalayan districts?What is equitable representation? Then, what about voicing inclusion in the inclusive federal democratic republic of Nepal, and what about the future and sustainability of the delimitation?Anyway, as this recent delimitation has developed its policy based on an urban-centric perspective, the possibility of raising and addressing issues and accordingly searching for pragmatic options for rural areas will decrease as per the reduction of FCA & SCA. As a result, there are maximum chances that the trend of compulsive migration from hilly and Himalayan regions to urban areas, most specifically towards Terai, will fuel the trend of already overpopulated and overburdened urban areas to the extreme level in the coming 20 years. Source : [ 26 ] , [ 18 ] , [ 12 ] , [ 80 ] , [ 57 ] , [ 25 ] , [ 68 ] , [ 73 ] , etc .
International Context — India Practice 1 : Anyway, some countries like India have also been following the weightage system since the very initial enforcement of its first Delimitation Commission Act 1952 as per the constitutional spirit of Article 81. 2. (a, b), Article 82, and Article 170 of the current constitution of India 1949. As the delimitation was and is completely based on population, the electoral delimitation of constituencies in India became and has been becoming a totally population-dominated delimitation. In the name of population, other determinants such as geography, remoteness, economic specificity, transportation connectivity, cultural and ethnic traits, administrative boundaries, inclusiveness, equality, and equity are completely undermined, even disregarding the basic concept of “distribution of population” with “number (or concentration) of population”. This is the main reason due to which, after the Delimitation Commission Act 1972, the delimitation quotas for states have been kept frozen and have still been continuing with minor modifications even after the ongoing Delimitation Commission Act 2002 up to 2026. This is the burning issue various national and regional level political parties have been raising continuously as the ongoing delimitation expiry date is coming nearer ([ 40 ]). The freezing of the state electoral quotas of constituencies for almost 54 years (1972-2026) is not the solution but the postponement of the problem for the further awaiting potentially more and more aggregated, bigger and bigger problems. Neither the increasing of already oversized total seats or electoral constituencies as per the population size is an ultimate sustainable solution, as the very nature of population is to change or mostly to increase (except in very rarely extremely exceptional cases), but not the geography and its limited source or the elasticity of its economy and financial resources. As per the population size, it is obvious and natural that the average base population and geography, along with other indicators for an electoral area, can increase or decrease. In the course of time, if the population increases, the base limit of population for an electoral area will increase but not the total number of electoral areas. Otherwise, there will definitely be politically, economically, and sustainably unmanageable numbers of seats or electoral areas as per the increase of the population in the course of time. And this is the crux. Deviation from the base limit of population, geography, and other determinants is obvious and natural in almost all cases. And we have the constitutional responsibility of proportionate, inclusive and equitable distribution, representation, participation, and development of every highly populated centre to periphery. Thus, the concept of administrative boundaries, electoral districts, zonal and provincial electoral boundaries with constitutionally defined quotas are provisioned. In addition, upon a deviation, we need to categorize it as normal (minimum, average, and maximum) deviation and exceptional (average and extreme) deviation, and the deviations are fulfilled with addible and deductible statistical interplay between and among the determinants. This is how CPoD Comprehensive Principle of Delimitation works as per the spirit of modern democracy and according delimitation. As far as other than constituencies, especially the referendum one, as it is for the whole country and the country itself is an electoral area, solely the population naturally plays a vital role. In this particular situation, population can only be the one and only final determinant. No if, no but. Otherwise, for constituencies, we need to look for other multiple criterial determinants in spite of dominantly concentrating on any one criterion. Thus, population and geography should be primary criteria along with the other above-mentioned secondary criteria. Thus, the electoral delimitation provision of India is seriously needing for the 107 th constitutional amendment as per its primary and secondary criteria for permanent settlement of the electoral delimitation of constituency, as it is the only solution left for India. Source : [ 40 ]
Theory of Equality, Equity, and Inclusion in Electoral Delimitation Equal, Equitable & Inclusive Representation Inequitable and Inequitable Electoral De limit ation : 1. As discussed above, there are significant indications of gerrymandering in the Terai districts. In fact, the spatial and directional arrangement of electoral constituencies in these Terai districts appears to favor Terai (Madhesh)-centric political parties, as well as certain mainstream leaders and parties that hold the ethnic Madhesh or Terai vote bank ( Figure A1 ).2. Number of Constituencies - Urban vs. Rural, Terai vs. Hilly and Himalayan Regions, Terai-Rural vs. Terai-Cities: More electoral seats, almost 49% (135 MPs out of a total of 275 MPs and 269 MLAs out of 550 MLAs), have been provided to the Terai alone, ignoring almost 80% of the geography of Nepal—Hilly & Himalaya regions and their population ( Figure A2 ). The minimum of two constituency seats for each district, as per previous constitutional trends, has been ignored and replaced with a minimum of one. In the name of equal representation, equitable representation has been totally ignored. The principle of “impartiality” has been completely undermined, and “distribution of population” has been entirely dominated by only prioritizing the number or concentration of population (Note: This Equity & Inclusion Theory is to fill the gap, as Handley’s theory remains silent about Equitable & Inclusive Representation. These equitable features are generally maintained with constitutional provisions of various average baseline deviations of population from 0% - 61.9%, i.e., 15% of Armenia and the Czech Republic, 15% - 24% of Germany, 30% of Singapore, 61.9% of Canada, etc.). Anyway, the percentage ratio of permissible deviations in current practices remains the subject of ongoing study with respect to their validity, suitability, and equitable representation. In fact, the determination of permissible deviation percentages is typically grounded in the spatial distribution and concentration of the population. Thus, the deviations can range from 0% to 90%; however, determining how these deviations are reconciled with other determinants—primarily geographic factors, as well as secondary determinants—through additive and subtractive statistical principles remains a significant concern. But in terms of Nepal, this feature of exceptional deviation has not been understood. And, in the course of making “equal representational delimitation”, “equitable representational delimitation” has been undermined, without which delimitation can never be justified. Source : [ 26 ] , [ 18 ] , [ 12 ] , [ 57 ] , [ 25 ] , [ 1 ] , [ 68 ] , etc.
Consensus & Majoritarian Theory of Powell Majoritarian Government Inability or difficulty in delivering a single-party majority government : Political instability and public movements (Gen Z’s Movement of 8 Sep. 2025 and Public Movement of 28 Mar. 2025) are due to the very nature of the inability to deliver a majority government (to a single party) under the Mixed Election System, particularly in a multi-party system.As per Powell’s “Consensus & Majoritarian theory”, the Consensus Electoral System—by the nature of its own electoral system—remains silent in the context of forming and delivering a majority government, which for sure leads the democratic country, especially a parliamentary multiparty democratic country, towards political instability ([ 59 ]). This means that because the consensus system has the electoral tools of PR (Proportional Representation), it emphasizes ensuring that multiple parties or groups are proportionally and inclusively represented; and due to its distributive nature, it is harder for any single party to obtain a majority in the House of Representatives, and instead, coalition governments are formed, which definitely leads the country towards frequent formation and breakage of political coalitions and equations among the political parties, which for sure ultimately leads the nation towards political instability, corruption, impunity, and bad governance.But in terms of Nepal, although it has not been following a complete 100% consensus system but rather a mixed-electoral system of both Majoritarian (FPTP) and Consensus PR (Proportional Representation) with a weightage of 60:40, the result still seemed almost similar and unaffected by what Powell’s consensus theory said. Over these 18 years of Republican Democracy, Nepal has held 5 elections, witnessing 15 Prime Ministers and corresponding governments. Almost all of the governments during this period were coalition governments. This political scenario is clear enough to validate instability or the difficulty of delivering a single-party majority government even in a mixed-electoral system, in a very similar way to what Powell mentioned about the weaknesses of the consensus electoral system. Source : [ 38 ] , [ 58 ] , [ 59 ] , [ 51 ] , and 2025 Nepalese Gen Z Protests - [ 84 ] , etc.
Structuralism Theory of Governing Structure Governing Structure Governing Structure Status : Overburdening and an oversized governing structure of 761 governments (1 federal, 7 state, 753 local units) and 275 members in the Federal Assembly, 550 members in the State Assembly, 59 members in the National Assembly, and a total of 37,012 political posts for all three government structures for a small country like Nepal ( Table B ). Budget Spending Status for the Governing Structure: Most of the budget proportion, specifically more than 80%, goes to the operational recurrent budget for this governing structure, without any noticeable social security spending ( Table C ). Source : [ 12 ] , [ 15 ] , [ 47 ] , [ 48 ] , [ 49 ] , [ 87 ] [ for GDP ], [ 44 ] [ GDP for the year 2024 / 25], [ 2 ] [ for projected GDP for the year [ 2 ] / 26], [ 81 ] , and [ 29 ] , etc.
Comparative structural analysis in the context of Nepal on its own : Nepal used to have two-tier governments with a total of 205 MPs, in comparison to the current 275 MPs and 550 MLAs. As of now, it has adopted both PR and FPTP electoral systems, compared to its previous single FPTP. Comparative Budget Spending Status for the Governing Structure : The ratio of recurrent (other expenditure) budget to development budget was 60:40 in the year 1999/2000, while it has been listed as 80+:19+ in recent years from 2018 to 2027. This means that the maximum proportion of the government budget and spending is for general operating costs, with almost none or without any notable social security budget and spending {1.67% (5.64% of its total budget) of its GDP (Nominal)} ( Table C ). Source : [ 12 ] , [ 80 ] , [ 11 ] , [ 49 ] , [ 47 ] , [ 48 ] , [ 15 ] , [ 30 ] , [ 69 ] , [ 44 ] [ GDP for the year 2024 / 25], [ 2 ] [ for projected GDP for the year 2025 / 26], [ 81 ] , [ 29 ] , and [ 68 ] , etc.
Comparative structural analysis in the context of Nepal and India: Having 275 MPs for a small country like Nepal is quite high and expensive in comparison to India’s 543 MPs, considering that India is almost 48 times more highly populated, 22 times geographically larger, and has a 91.2 times larger economy than Nepal.
Theory of Good Governance Good Governance Availability of Good Governance: Bad governance, corruption, impunity, etc., have increased at the level of public tolerance. The most recent public movements, such as the Gen Z movement of 8 September 2025 and the public movement of 28 March 2025, etc., are examples of this. Source : [ 58 ], [ 31 ], [ 25 ], and [ 68 ], etc.
Good Governance Status : ‘Grey List’ as per FATP & European Union, and heading towards the Black List. Source : [ 19 ], [ 25 ], and [ 68 ], etc.
Other Public Movements People’s Movements : Due to issues of political instability, corruption, and impunity, public distrust increases, and, with it, public movements have been appearing. The Gen Z Movement of 08 September 2025 and the Public Movement of 28 March 2025 are examples of this. The toppling of the government and formation of a neutral interim government, announcement and conduction of elections without addressing national issues, impunity privileges given to political leaders who have been charged and are on trial for serious money laundering and organized crime, and their illegitimate candidacy in the constituency election and their success in election as MP, increasing attraction towards the trend of populistic politics, and increasing taxes over the public and the increasingly raised public voices against it, et c. , are for sure not signaling a brighter political aspect that prevents us from assuring that there will be no further public movements in the near future. Source : [ 58 ] , and [ 2 ] Nepalese Gen Z Protests - [ 84 ] , etc.
Economic Scully’s Growth Maximization Tax Theory Tax Scully’s Growth Maximization Tax Theory and Nepalese Context : The economic indicators are also not indicating positive optimism but a counterproductive status. As for the tax load, it is also not demonstrating any positive indication. It reflects almost the equivalent figure of 19.38% of the country’s total GDP (nominal), even in spite of just covering the social security budget as the amount of 1.67% (5.64% of its total budget) of its GDP for the year 2025/26. Thus, the counterproductive tax load, as per the parameters of Scully and Panthee, over the total nominal GDP is equal to 7.08% in the year 2025/26, as Scully and Panthee’s parameters of growth-maximizing optimum tax rate are 12.3%. This 7.08% counterproductive tax overload will for sure cross the critical tax overload of 7.36% of its projected GDP (NRs. 7.148 trillion) at the end of the current fiscal year 2026/27. As for the social security budget, there is no doubt that the Nepalese security budget has been very limited, sectoral, and the lowest. However, from the global context, it is always assumed to be universally justiciable to have a sufficient proportion of social security, but provided with proper attention towards the specific social security, particularly the unemployment allowance, to ensure that it does not impact production, productivity, employment and employability, and the healthy economy of the country in any national and global context. ( Table E1 , Table C , and Figure D2 ) Source : [ 56 ] , [ 67 ] , [ 32 ] , [ 30 ] , [ 69 ] , [ 49 ] , [ 5 ] , and [ 81 ] , etc.
Growth Maximization Tax Theory of Keshav Raj Panthee for the specificity of the Nepalese context
Comparative Tax Burden Analysis Nepalese & Indian Context Comparative Tax Burden between Nepal and India : Coming again to the point, the yearly average individual tax load for the year 2025/26 has been almost 134 (NRs. 43234) times higher in comparison to the year 1999/2000 (NRs. 322). In the year 1999/2000, the yearly average per person tax load was only NRs. 322, and it increased up to NRs. 43234 in the year 2025/26 and will further reach NRs. 47429 at the end of this current year 2026/27. From the comparative perspective of average Nepalese and Indian individual tax loads, the Nepalese yearly average individual tax load was approximately 49.5% (NRs. 43234) higher than the Indian average individual tax load (NRs. 28930) in the same year 2025/26, in spite of the Nepalese trade-based small economy compared to the Indian production-based big economy. Furthermore, the counterproductive yearly public expenditure for each year from 2018 to 2026 is trajectorially indexed from 4.7% to 14% as per Rahn’s parameter of growth-maximizing public expenditure (25% of GDP) ( Table C , Table E2 , Table E3 , and Figure D1 ). Source : [ 45 ] , [ 23 ] , [ 32 ] , [ 30 ] , [ 69 ] , [ 88 ] , [ 89 ] , [ 86 ] , [ 49 ] , [ 22 ] , [ 21 ] , [ 21 ] , [ 43 ] , [ 7 ] , [ 61 ] , [ 44 ] [ GDP for the year 2024 / 25], [ 2 ] [ for projected GDP of the year 2025 / 26], [ 49 ] , [ 81 ] , [ 29 ] , [ 28 ] , [ 5 ] , [ 24 ] , and public expenditure here is based on the budget figures , etc.
Rahn’s Public Expenditure Theory Public Expenditure
Theory of Trade Balance Trade Balance Trade Balance of Nepal in terms of its GDP : As far as the trade deficit is concerned, it has reached its highest level. The exact data show that 25% of its GDP has been recorded as an annual trade deficit each year ( Table F3 ). Specifically, it reached 27% in the year 2025/26 and will be reaching over 27% at the end of this current year 2026/27. A trade deficit is by no means good for the country’s economy.
Growth Maximization Ratio Theory of National Debt and GDP National Debt & GDP National Debt and GDP : The national debt has also been skyrocketing. It reached an index of 44.99% (NRs. 2974 billion) of its GDP in the year 2025/26, which means almost 9.55% of its GDP is classified as counterproductive debt according to the parameters of ideal growth-maximizing national debt by Prasai. In fact, 35.44% is supposed to be the ideal growth-maximizing national debt limit as per the study of Prasai. The status of the counterproductive threat line for the current year 2026/27 is projected to be 15.36%, with the national debt at 50.80% (NRs. 3631.28 billion) of its projected GDP at the end of this year 2026/27 ( Table F1 , and ). Source : [ 60 ] , [ 64 ] . Nepal’s Public Debt Reaches Rs. 2 . 622 Trillion. [ 66 ] , and [ 75 ] , [ 65 ] , [ 36 ] , [ 70 ] , [ 50 ] , [ 81 ] , [ 63 ] , and [ 29 ] , etc.
Public Debt Burden over Population Public Debt Burden Over Population: As for the average debt burden per person for each Nepalese individual, it reached the amount of NRs. 100373 in the year 2025/26, and, if everything remains the same, it is going to approach NRs. 122556 at the end of the current fiscal year 2026/27 (). Source : [ 13 ] ( for the debt up to 2023 ), [ 64 ] [ for the debt of 2024], [ 86 ] , [ 66 ] [ for the debt of [ 2 ] ], [ 63 ] , [ 81 ] , and the projection of the Nepalese national debt trend for the year 2026 / 27 is analysed based on the national budget figure of 2025 / 26 .
Other Bank & Finance Banking Status : Bank interest rates increased up to 16% - 17% during 2023. Eight Commercial Banks, which means almost 29% of the then total Commercial Banks, have been either merged, become defunct, or acquired by the existing Commercial Banks within these eight years of delimitation implementation. Only 5 existing Commercial Banks out of 20 have achieved minor profitability, while 15 have faced a −39.33% downturn during the years 2023/24 ([ 55 ]). Similarly, about 10 Development Banks, which is almost 38.53% of the total existing Development Banks, have become defunct during these implemented years. Finance , Savings & Cooperatives’ Status : Out of a total of 15 finance companies, almost half, exactly 7, which means 47% of the total finance companies, have reported a loss ([ 54 ]). 29%, or around 4000, of the cooperatives and savings companies have been inactive or closed, as per the report of the investigation by the parliamentary special investigation committee ([ 27 ]). As for the status after 2024, most of the existing cooperatives are either on the verge of closing or some of them have already been closed, but we cannot present the exact statistics at the moment due to a lack of available research. Source : [ 55 ] , [ 27 ] , [ 83 ] , and [ 54 ] , etc.
Industries & Employment Industries & Employment Status : Many small business units and industries have already shut down or are on the verge of an existential crisis, and whatever industries are still in operation are either reducing their production levels down to 25% - 40% or considering safer closure. About 21%, or 217 out of a total of 1030 registered and operational industries in the single industrial district of Rupandehi, have been closed in a single year in 2023 (the current data are certainly more depressing, though no recent updates have been provided or made available from the Government of Nepal and its subordinates and concerned stakeholders), and we can imagine what the scenario is for the overall country ([ 37 ]). However, around 2017 and before that, various labour market studies have come up with findings far better than the current labour market and employment status. Source : [ 37 ] , [ 72 ] , and [ 3 ] , etc.
Stock Exchange, Share Market & Real Estate Stock Exchange , Share Market , and Real Estate : Moving through hard times. Source : [ 53 ] , [ 4 ] , [ 78 ] , [ 37 ] , etc.
Major Social & Development Projects Social and Development Projects : Especially major social and development projects funded by the USA through US Aid, UN agencies, and other related INGOs have been halted after Nepal was indexed as a Grey-list country by the FATF and the European Union. Thus, major projects are stranded. Source : [ 52 ] .
GDP Growth & Inflation Rate GDP Growth and Inflation Rate : To further discuss the consequences of these implemented years of this commission’s recommended delimitation, as research had already predicted via the first version of my research during Oct. 2017, the delimitation would surely hamper economic indicators, more specifically the economic growth rate, which was hardly going to achieve 0.5% - 1.5% ([ 73 ]), as already seemed to be true when it just achieved -2.37% and 1.95%, respectively, in the years 2021 and 2023 ([ 34 ]). While the inflation rate, which I predicted through my first final research of CPoD, was 20% - 35%, this turned out to be correct after it reached 48.23% following the enforcement of the delimitation from 2018-2025 ([ 35 ]).
Natural Disaster: Rasuwa Bhotekoshi Flash Flood of August 2026 Rasuwa Bhotekoshi Flash Flood of August 2026 : The most recent devastating Rasuwas Bhotekoshi Flash Flood has struck dozens of settlements along the 72 KM stretch of Trisuli river. At least 1,451 deaths and 5,745 persons are recorded as still missing ([ 85 ]). As according to the preliminary assessment conducted by Government of Nepal, it has suffered the economic loss of near about US$. 5 billion (NRs. 7.662 trillion) which is, as per the Foreign Minister Mr. Shisir Khanal, near about 15% (exact figure 11.59%) of the country’s GDP and 1/3 of the current budget figure ([ 6 ]). And, it has negative impact on the overall country’s economy.
Global Context Global Context : As for the global context, the Russia and Ukraine war, Middle East conflict, Israel and America vs. Iran war, petroleum and gasoline blockade in the Middle East region, especially the Strait of Hormuz, supply chain obstruction, global shortage and price hike of fuel and energy, global economic inflation and recession, etc., certainly not only have negative global political & economic impacts but also a small, landlocked, and already pre-impacted country like Nepal has very serious multi-faceted impacts in the days to come. In the present context, experts have been saying that the price per barrel of gasoline has crossed US$100, whereas it was around US$70 just before the war escalation. It means almost a 42.8% increase has already been witnessed, which means the consequence is going to be approximately a 1.2% additional increase in global inflation and a 0.5% additional decrease in global economic growth. It is definitely going to be more serious when it comes to the Nepalese economy. It is definitely going to impact tourism, foreign employment, remittance, living standards, livelihood, foreign exchange reserves, energy crisis, inflation, investment, economic growth & overall economy, etc. Thus, in conclusion, the cumulation of all of its Nepalese indicators has been indicating its alarming status of critical crisis. If it is not addressed and timely progressive intervention is not taken, there is no doubt that it is heading towards the level of severe crisis.
Law Structuralism and Textualist Theory of the Constitution Governing Structure and Electoral Constituency Delimitation Governing Structural Analysis : From the structuralist point of view, the provisions of parts 7, 8, 13, 14, 24, and 31 (Article 286) of the current constitution 2015 are all about the governing structure of Nepal. According to this, the governing structure of Nepal is oversized. Due to this, almost all of the budget proportion, specifically 80%+, goes to the operational recurrent budget for this governing structure without any noticeable social security budget. Source : [ 12 ] , [ 25 ] , [ 33 ] , [ 68 ] , and [ 20 ] , etc.
Textualistic Analysis of Constitution: From the textualistic perspective, the textual provisions of parts 7, 8, 13, 14, 24, and 31 (Article 286) of the current constitution 2015 are all about the governing structure of Nepal. As per this, the governing structure and government size are overburdening. Thus, it reflects the urgency of constitutional review, especially the textual parts 7, 8, 13, 14, 24, and 31 (Article 286) of the current constitution. Source : [ 12 ]
Population Forced Migration Theory & Compulsive Migration Theory Migration Trajectory Forced and Compulsive Migration Analys is : During the period of CPN(M) operated Nepalese Civil War (1996-2006), people were forced to migrate predominantly from the Hilly and, to a lesser extent, the Himalayan Regions to nearby Terai Regions, though some minor tendencies of migration toward Hilly headquarters from Hilly rural areas and from rural Terai to Terai cities were also witnessed. After the Comprehensive Peace Accord and the CPN(M) political move toward mainstream politics and the CPN(M) Coalition Government, the enforcement of the Nepal Citizenship Act 2006 and the controversial distribution of citizenship to 4,500,000, mostly Indian or other national citizens, drastically increased the population of Terai. The Madhesh movement for Federalism, with self-determination rights and a proportionate election system, and the enforcement of a Mixed electoral system with proportional representation and constituency delimitation based on a population-dominant 90:10 weightage system, were set to provide the highest number of Constituency seats for MPs & MLAs to the Terai region, resulting in more representation and voices in government formation, policy making, and resource distribution, leaving the Hilly & Himalaya regions underrepresented, voiceless, and resourceless in the long run. Consequently, the living status of 35 districts will become so hard, deprived, and ignored that there may arise a situation where the entire 35 districts of the Hilly and Himalayan region may have few or almost no population due to massive and compulsive migration toward the so-called centre (urban areas of Terai and the capital) simply for average basic needs, necessity, rights, opportunity, access, and prosperity. Population Growth Trend in Respect to Migration : At around 1952 and 1971, the population of Terai was 35.2% and 37.6%, whereas it reached 50.27% in 2011 and 53.7% in 2022. Even according to the Nepalese Census 2021, the average population increase rate is 1.7%, but for Terai, it has shown 3.5%, making it alone 53.7%. This is certainly not the result of Terai’s reproductive growth, but is due to massive compulsive migration from the Hilly & Himalayan regions. The increase of 3.5% in the regional population of Terai within the very short period of implementation of constituency delimitation (2018-2022) is by any means not normal. Thus, Delimitation 2017 will not only create overpopulated urban or Terai areas and their peripheries, but will also adversely impact the balance and life cycle of Nepalese economic & political aspects, further pushing the country toward regional, ethnic, and cultural conflicts. Source : [ 39 ] , [ 41 ] , the Census in Nepal - [ 82 ] , etc.
Mathematics Ratio Theory Sustainable Electoral Delimitation, Institutional Structure, and Inter-Institutional Ratio Ratio Analysis Theory : The ratio theory has been implemented in tracing the structural drawbacks of the overall institutional size of governance, as well as in locating gerrymandering and the sustainability of electoral constituencies. As far as the weaknesses of Nepalese governing structure and gerrymandering are concerned, there are many traces we have already identified, as mentioned and established earlier above in the parameters section from the discipline of political science, especially Population & Geography, and governing structure, etc.
Theory of Statistics - Comprehensive Statistics Principle of Flexibility and Balance to address the available status of deviations and the diversity of various determinants Comprehensive Statistics Operating Mechanism for addressing the current status of deviations and the diversity of various determinantsOn behalf of Comprehensive Constituency Delimitation Comprehensive Statistics Operational Model for the equal , equitable , and inclusive electoral delimitation : Furthermore, upon identification of significant drawbacks of the Weightage System, Electoral Constituency Delimitation, and its mal-proportioned distributions upon governance structure that are leading the overall country towards a crisis, the same ratio analysis, along with a very special innovative statistical operating mechanism of the Comprehensive Principle of Flexibility and Balance, has been employed to address all average, normal, and exceptional deviations and diversity to make overall electoral delimitation more dynamic, inclusive, equal, and equitable. This new and innovative principle, method, and tool have been developed and implemented in the course of developing and presenting the “Comprehensive Electoral Delimitation System” as per Nepal’s own specificity and necessity. Its global implementability is its strength. The textual and calculation content further below, after this table section, is the same.
** Other (Innovative Findings) Conclusive Establishment of the Research A new ‘Comprehensive Statistics of Balance & Flexibility for Inclusivity, Equality, and Equitability’ ** Innovation 1 : The more advanced, consistent, and dynamic statistics operational mechanism named “Comprehensive Statistics of Balance and Flexibility for Inclusive, Equal, and Equitable Distribution and Representation” has been established and offered accordingly throughout this research to address the issues of the weightage system as well as all the weaknesses of the available electoral delimitation it (Weightage System) delivered. USPs : Almost all of the available delimitations follow the weightage system. It is mostly based on the weightage given to various primary and secondary determinants. Thus, there are always chances of questions arising regarding the ratio set for various determinants. It also raises curiosity about how it settles the certain increment of one determinant with others. Thus, it seems more manipulative, as it manipulates the ratio rather than incorporating and automating with the actual available ratio of determinants through an objective automation system called AODS (Automatic Objective Determination System). This is what, actually, the CPoD (Comprehensive Principle of Delimitation) discusses. In addition, CECD, with its statistics of “Absolute Non-Discriminatory Operating Mechanism” through “AODS (Automatic Objective Determination System)”, has for the very first time introduced the “Validity Status Determination System (VSDS)”. The remarkable aspect of Comprehensive Statistics is also about its measurability, it makes the equality, equity and inclusion as the measurable criteria. Moreover, the statistics makes it possible to measure the malapportionment or gerrymandering of both of its numerical or spatial dimension. In fact, the base parameters of CPoD play a major role in identifying the status of gerrymandering or malapportionment, as malapportionment and gerrymandering are assessed by comparison with the measurable parameters of CPoD. Scope : It has not only a global scope in the sector of electoral delimitation and governing systems but also vivid policy formation and comprehensive decision making, as well as model developments such as tax systems, assessment, audit, appraisal, evaluation, and monitoring systems, etc.
A new ‘Comprehensive Electoral Constituency Delimitation System’ ** Innovation 2 : The more dynamic, innovative, and globally implementable “Comprehensive Electoral Constituency Delimitation System” has been established and offered accordingly throughout this research. USPs : Absolute Non-discriminatory Operating Mechanism; local, national, international, and global applicability; based on its innovation of a more dynamic statistics operating mechanism and Validity Status Determination System (VSDS); effective and feasible governance structural orientation; assurance of inclusive, equal, and equitable electoral constituency delimitation; etc. are some of its important USPs. Scope : Global Scope.
Comprehensive Principle or Comprehensive Principle of Delimitation (CoPD) ** Innovation 3 : The new, innovative, and dynamic principle or theory named “Comprehensive Principle” or “Comprehensive Principle of Delimitation (CPoD)” has been established throughout this research. USPs : CECD itself is being inclusive; electoral constituency delimitation is one of the USPs that can ensure equal and equitable representation through electoral constituency delimitation guided by CPoD. The Absolute Non-Discriminatory Operating Mechanism, universal and local applicability with its complete system, method, and procedure based on its own statistical operating model are the innovative features of it. Scope : Multi-Disciplinary. It has not only global scope in the sector of electoral delimitation and governing systems but also vivid policy formation and comprehensive decision making, as well as model developments such as tax systems, assessment, audit, appraisal, evaluation, monitoring & Contact systems, etc.
Validity Status Determination System ** Innovation 4 : The more advanced, consistent, and dynamic “Validity Status Determination System (VSDS)” has been established throughout this research to ensure the equal and equitable representation of all available deviations or diversities from average to normal deviations or diversities, normal to exceptional deviations or diversities, and exceptional to extreme exceptional deviations or diversities. The Validity Statuses are categorically structured as Absolute Valid, Valid, Medium Valid, and Lower Valid. The parameters of validity from “100% - 82.25% or 100% - 117.25%” are valued as an “Absolute Valid Status,” from “82.25% - 60.5% or 117.25 - 139.5%” are evaluated as a “Valid Status,” from “60.5% - 33.25% or 139.5 - 166.75%” are calculated as a “Medium Valid Status,” and from “33.25% - 1% or 166.75% - 199%” are assessed as “Lower Valid,” respectively. USPs : VSDS is the categorization of four validation clusters with a two-dimensional validation system, both less than 100% down to 1% and from more than 100% up to 199%, to deal with and validate multi-determinant parameters effectively, efficiently, and inclusively. It is its number one USP, though there are numerous general empirical USPs. Scope : The only vital measure lacking in any discipline or study to be effective and sufficiently operational is, for sure, validation. Validation is the process through which we can ensure that any study, discipline, faculty, policy, plan, project, or any performance is on track to achieve its goals and vision. When it comes to VSDS, it certainly has a principal role in almost all aspects of the world. Thus, with its four clustered sub-categories and two-dimensional validation system, it has remarkably significant value and scope for the multidisciplinary world, especially for multi-determinant operations, performance analysis, study, and authentication.
Measurability: Equality, Equity, Inclusion, Malapportionment, and Gerrymandering ** Innovation 5 : The more dynamic and consistent measurability of the aspect of equality, equity, inclusion, Malapportionment or gerrymandering has been established throughout this research. USPs : The CPoD establishes equality, equity, and inclusion as measurable criteria for constituency delimitation. The Average Area or Population per Constituency ( α ¯ or μ) defines “Absolute Equal Delimitation,” while deviations of up to ±25% constitute “Substitutional Equal Delimitation.” Deductible deviations of 25% - 44.35%, 44.35% - 66.35%, and 66.35% - 97.25% respectively define Minimum, Medium, and Maximum/Extreme Equitable Values or Delimitation, corresponding to Addible Method intervals of 25% - 100%, 100% - 200%, and 200% - 1,200%. Despite their opposite operational bases, both the Addible and Deductible Methods preserve the measurable principle of equity within the CPoD framework. (Kindly see Page 30 for more detail) Scope : Multi-Disciplinary Scope.

From the above findings, it has become clear that the weightage system has plenty of issues because it does not have the flexibility to address all the availabilities of diversities and deviations in an inclusive manner. Even if we set the weightage somewhere at the very equilibrium point—though there are no as such equilibrium points, because the equilibrium point for one cluster cannot be the equilibrium point for another cluster, and another cluster’s centre point cannot be the balanced central point for further another cluster, and so on endlessly—it possibly addresses the available general average cluster, but what about all other available normal and exceptional diversity clusters’ deviations? After all, the real-time actual availabilities of determinant status are definitely in the multiple forms of varieties of clusters, deviations, and diversities. In addition, the truth is that almost all of the actual availabilities of determinants come under normal diversity or deviation, and the few remaining leftovers come under exceptional diversity or deviations. The weightage system gives a centre point or ratio among the available determinants, but there are so many centre points in real fields if the delimitation needs to be flawless, with perfection, inclusivity, equality, and equitability. Simply increasing and decreasing the ratio of the available determinants of the weightage system is not a solution. If you increase the weightage of the first determinant, it will make the delimitation more first determinant-oriented; similarly, if we increase the second determinant, it will make the delimitation second determinant-oriented. How do you set and address these multiple increasing and decreasing tendencies, and in what fashion to address all the available multiple diversities? This is the big question to which the weightage system does not have any answer, and it is its limitation. The answer to this is the “Comprehensive Constituency Delimitation”, which has its own all-in-one statistical operating mechanism called “Comprehensive Statistics of Balance and Flexibility” to address all of these available diversities or deviations, encompassing from “average to minimum normal”, “minimum normal to maximum normal”, “maximum normal to minimum exceptional”, and from “minimum exceptional to extreme exceptional cases” on a case-by-case basis with an inclusive and justiciable tendency. Much of these things have already been mentioned above in the methodology section about the “Comprehensive Constituency Delimitation” and “Comprehensive Statistics of Balance and Flexibility”, by the way.

In addition, to discuss the overall constituency delimitation procedure from a dimensional point of view, it has two dimensions—Numeral Dimension and Spatial Dimension. The Numeral Dimension of constituency delimitation is a preliminary delimitation process for determining the number as per the available total countrywide constituencies. Whereas, the Spatial Dimension of Constituency Delimitation is an actual “One to One” constituency delimitation after the execution of the Numeral Dimension and with its successful deliverables of allocation of justiciable number of constituencies for the provincial, regional, zonal, and administrative districts. Generally, in the Numeral Dimension, the two primary key determinants, geography and population, have been utilized to identify and allocate the number of constituencies. Whereas, during the spatial dimensional execution, the delimitation has also focused on other secondary determinants such as geographical conditions, administrative and transportation proximity, and the communal and cultural characteristics of the people living in such districts, etc., along with its primary determinants. Anyway, these two dimensions, along with Post-Electoral Constituency Delimitation Assessment (PECDA) and Electoral Constituency Impact Assessment (ECIA), are not only to allocate and structure electoral constituency but also provide feedback for the improvement of constituency delimitation and delimitation-related constitutional amendment through developing and proposing the delimitation (pre and post, and impact) reviews and model for the effective Electoral Constituency Delimitation Life Cycle Management (ECDLCM). Anyway, in the context of delimiting the electoral constituency with comprehensive electoral constituency delimitation, the Numeral Dimension and its activity of determining the number of constituencies with “Comprehensive Statistics of Balance and Flexibility for Equality, Equity and Inclusion (CSoBaFfEEaI)” as per administrative districts are significantly important. Thus, let us now move towards the preliminary but vital stage of comprehensive delimitation and its empirically specific findings as directed by the operational roadmap mentioned earlier by the methodology. As per the roadmap, the research has delimited the district-wise number of constituencies utilizing the comprehensive electoral delimitation methods—Average Method, Addible Method, and Deductible Method. Therefore, these methods are very important; all of them have been automatically operative during the Comprehensive Electoral Delimitation in order to achieve delimitation with the pure political qualities of equality, equity, and inclusion at the same time, which is not possible through the currently available trend of electoral constituency delimitation backed by a sole weightage system statistics tool. Hence, the CSoBaFfEEaI is new for academic disciplines and as well as constituency delimitation, and has potentially significant scope for multiple disciplines. However, the following are the empirical findings (Table 5), especially of the Numeral Dimension of Comprehensive Electoral Constituency Delimitation (CECD).

Table 5.Empirical findings of the numerical dimension of Comprehensive Electoral Constituency Delimitation (CECD) of Nepal.

Comprehensive Constituency Delimitation as per Comprehensive Statistics of Balance & Flexibility
District Pop. Overall Area District Wise Area as per Local Units Average Method Addible Method and Deductible Method
NoC No C Ratio toμ (in %) Difference % Ratio to α ¯ in %) Difference % Context Status & Method Deductible (D) or Addible (Ad) in % Valid% (V%)to be a FCA Valid Pop/Geo to be an FCA(A1*V% orP1*V%) NoC (a1/A 1*V%orp/P1* V%) No C
Taplejung 120590 3646 3645.05 N/A N/A 68.22 −31.78 438.90 338.90 1 Large 1 Small than Average Value Geography > it’s Average Value (AV)by 338.89% -D 70.64 29.36 51877.59 2.32 2
Panchthar 172400 1241 1252.06 N/A N/A 97.54 −2.46 150.76 50.76 1 Large GV > Pop-D 31.65 68.35 120812.04 1.43 1
Ilam 279534 1703 1706.72 1.82 2 158.15 58.15 205.51 105.51 Both Large Average Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 2
Jhapa 998054 1606 1619.92 3.80 4 564.65 464.65 195.05 95.05 Both Large Average Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 4
Morang 1148156 1855 1828.06 4.35 4 649.57 549.57 220.12 120.12 Both Large Average Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 4
Sunsari 926962 1257 1136.8 3.31 3 524.43 424.43 136.88 36.88 Both Large Average Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 3
Dhankuta 150599 891 901.1 N/A N/A 85.20 −14.80 108.50 8.50 1 Large Pop (negatively) > GV-Ad 14.79 114.79 953.33095 0.95 1
Terhathum 88731 679 672.4 0.66 1 50.20 −49.80 80.96 −19.04 Both Small Average Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 1
Sankhuwasabha 158041 3480 2399.85 N/A N/A 89.41 −10.59 288.96 188.96 1 Large GV > Pop-D 63.92 36.08 63755.53 2.48 2
Bhojpur 157923 1507 1527.35 N/A N/A 89.35 −10.65 183.91 83.91 1 Large GV > Pop-D 40.20 59.80 105699.49 1.5 2
Solukhumbu 104851 3312 3359.39 N/A N/A 59.32 −40.68 404.50 304.50 1 Large GV > Pop-D 69.579 30.421 53768.871 1.95 2
Okhaldhunga 139552 1074 1091.86 N/A N/A 78.95 −21.05 131.47 31.47 1 Large GV > Pop-D 26.67 73.33 129614.44 1.08 1
Khotang 175298 1591 1592.52 N/A N/A 99.18 −0.82 191.75 91.75 1 Large GV > Pop- D 41.96 58.04 102570.93 1.71 2
Udayapur 340721 2063 2300.33 2.35 2 192.76 92.76 276.98 176.98 Both Large Average Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 2
Saptari 706255 1363 1213.09 2.73 3 399.57 299.57 146.07 46.07 Both Large Average Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 3
Siraha 739953 1188 1140.57 2.78 3 418.63 318.63 137.34 37.34 Both Large Average Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 3
Dhanusa 867747 1180 1207.67 3.18 3 490.93 390.93 145.41 45.41 Both Large Average Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 3
Mahottari 706994 1002 1001.34 2.60 3 399.99 299.99 120.57 20.57 Both Large Average Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 3
Sarlahi 862470 1259 1254.63 3.20 3 487.95 387.95 151.07 51.07 Both Large Average Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 3
Rautahat 813573 1126 1037.63 2.93 3 460.28 360.28 124.94 24.94 Both Large Average Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 3
Bara 763137 1190 1270.84 2.92 3 431.75 331.75 153.02 53.02 Both Large Average Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 3
Parsa 654471 1353 966.42 2.43 2 370.27 270.27 116.37 16.37 Both Large Average Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 2
Sindhupalchok 262624 2542 1879.05 1.87 2 148.58 48.58 226.26 126.26 Both Large Average Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 2
Kavrepalanchok 364039 1396 1395 1.87 2 205.96 105.96 167.97 67.97 Both Large Average Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 2
Lalitpur 551667 385 396.83 N/A N/A 312.11 212.11 47.78 −52.22 1 Large Pop > GV-D 66.72 33.28 276.31 1.44 1
Bhaktapur 432132 119 123.79 N/A N/A 244.48 144.48 14.91 −85.09 1 Large GV (negatively) > Pop-Ad 806.63 906.63 1602513.9 0.27 1
Kathmandu 2041587 395 433.61 N/A N/A 1155.04 1055.04 52.21 −47.79 1 Large Pop > GV-D 92.77 7.23 59.96 7.23 7
Nuwakot 263391 1121 1079.96 1.40 1 149.01 49.01 130.04 30.04 Both Large Average Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 1
Rasuwa 46689 1544 2085.04 N/A N/A 26.41 −73.59 251.06 151.06 1 Large Pop (negatively) > GV-Ad 434.14 534.14 4436.03 0.47 1
Dhading 325710 1926 2035.83 2.15 2 184.27 84.27 245.13 145.13 Both Large Average Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 2
Makwanpur 466073 2426 2280.28 2.69 3 263.68 163.68 274.57 174.57 Both Large Average Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 3
Sindhuli 300026 2491 2513.31 2.36 2 169.74 69.74 302.63 202.63 Both Large Average Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 2
Ramechhap 170302 1546 1567.69 N/A N/A 96.35 −3.65 188.76 88.76 1 Large GV > Pop-D 41.45 58.55 103472.38 1.65 2
Dolakha 172767 2191 2269.53 N/A N/A 97.74 −2.26 273.27 173.27 1 Large GV > Pop-D 60.47 39.53 69871.252 2.47 2
Chitawan 719859 2218 1333.54 2.84 3 407.26 307.26 160.57 60.57 Both Large Average Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 3
Gorkha 251027 3610 3645.86 2.91 3 142.02 42.02 439.00 339.00 Both Large Average Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 3
Lamjung 155852 1692 1662.4 N/A N/A 88.17 −11.83 200.17 100.17 1 Large GV > Pop-D 44.39 55.61 98293.46 1.59 2
Tanahu 321153 1546 1571 1.85 2 181.69 81.69 189.16 89.16 Both Large Average Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 2
Syangja 253024 1164 1037.48 1.34 1 143.15 43.15 124.92 24.92 Both Large Average Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 1
Kaski 600051 2017 1699.96 2.72 3 339.48 239.48 204.69 104.69 Both Large Average Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 3
Manang 5658 2246 2320.61 N/A N/A 3.20 −96.80 279.42 179.42 1 Large Pop (negatively) > GV-Ad 1185.1 1285.1 10666.44 0.22 1
Mustang 14452 3573 3562 N/A N/A 8.18 −91.82 428.90 328.90 1 Large Pop (negatively) > GV-Ad 1024.3 1124.3 9337.06 0.38 1
Myagdi 107033 2297 2284.98 N/A N/A 60.55 −39.45 275.13 175.13 1 Large GV > Pop-D 60.88 39.12 69146.56 1.55 2
Parbat 130887 494 541.57 0.70 1 74.05 −25.95 65.21 −34.79 Both Small Average Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 1
Baglung 249211 1784 1522.72 1.62 2 140.99 40.99 183.35 83.35 Both Large Average Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 2
E. Nawalparasi 378079 1370 1310.23 1.86 2 213.90 113.90 157.76 57.76 Both Large Average Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 2
Gulmi 246494 1149 1110.76 1.37 1 139.46 39.46 133.75 33.75 Both Large Average Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 1
Palpa 245027 1373 1461.9 1.57 2 138.63 38.63 176.03 76.03 Both Large Average Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 2
W. Nawalparasi 386868 792 747.05 N/A N/A 218.87 118.87 89.95 −10.05 1 Large Pop > GV-D 48.50 51.50 459.29 1.72 2
Rupandehi 1121957 1360 1297.49 3.95 4 634.75 534.75 156.23 56.23 Both Large Average Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 4
Kapilbastu 682961 1738 1651.17 2.93 3 386.39 286.39 198.82 98.82 Both Large Average Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 3
Arghakhanchi 177086 1193 1239.08 1.25 1 100.19 0.19 149.20 49.20 Both Large Average Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 1
Pyuthan 232019 1309 1320.93 1.45 1 131.27 31.27 159.05 59.05 Both Large Average Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 1
Rolpa 234793 1879 1885.41 1.80 2 132.84 32.84 227.02 127.02 Both Large Average Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 2
E. Rukum 56786 1161.1 1161.13 N/A N/A 32.13 −67.87 139.81 39.81 1 Large Pop (negatively) > GV-Ad 249.19 349.19 2900.02 0.4 1
Dang 674993 2955 3059.81 3.75 4 381.88 281.88 368.43 268.43 Both Large Average Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 4
Banke 603194 2337 1882.27 2.84 3 341.26 241.26 226.64 126.64 Both Large Average Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 3
Bardiya 459900 [ 2 ] 1105.36 1.97 2 260.19 160.19 133.10 33.10 Both Large Average Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 2
W. Rukum 166740 1716 1213.49 N/A N/A 94.33 −5.67 146.12 46.12 1 Large GV > Pop-D 30.45 69.55 122933.10 1.36 1
Salyan 238515 1462 1937.52 1.84 2 134.94 34.94 233.30 133.30 Both Large Average Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 2
Surkhet 415126 2451 2488.63 2.67 3 234.86 134.86 299.65 199.65 Both Large Average Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 3
Dailekh 252313 1502 1485.57 1.61 2 142.75 42.75 178.88 78.88 Both Large Average Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 2
Jajarkot 189360 2230 2223.35 1.87 2 107.13 7.13 267.71 167.71 Both Large Average Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 2
Dolpa 42774 7889 2460.88 N/A N/A 24.20 −75.80 296.31 196.31 1 Large Pop (negatively) > GV-Ad 230.58 330.58 2745.47 0.90 1
Jumla 118349 2531 2555.15 N/A N/A 66.96 −33.04 307.66 207.66 1 Large GV > Pop-D 66.59 33.41 59053.85 2 2
Kalikot 145292 1741 1641.3 N/A N/A 82.20 −17.80 197.63 97.63 1 Large GV > Pop-D 43.74 56.26 99442.36 1.46 1
Mugu 64549 3535 3234.5 N/A N/A 36.52 −63.48 389.46 289.46 1 Large GV > Pop-D 69.11 30.89 54581.94 1.18 1
Humla 55394 5655 6012.35 N/A N/A 31.34 −68.66 723.94 623.94 1 Large GV > Pop-D 79.45 20.55 36323.15 1.53 2
Bajura 138523 2188 2300.34 N/A N/A 78.37 −21.63 276.98 176.98 1 Large GV > Pop-D 61.29 38.71 68421.86 2.02 2
Bajhang 189085 3422 3394.21 2.58 3 106.98 6.98 408.69 308.69 Both Large Average Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 3
Achham 228852 1680 1663.86 1.65 2 129.47 29.47 200.34 100.34 Both Large Average Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 2
Doti 204831 [ 2 ] 1959.71 1.76 2 115.88 15.88 235.97 135.97 Both Large Average Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 2
Kailali 904666 3235 3292.35 4.54 5 511.82 411.82 396.43 296.43 Both Large Average Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 5
Kanchanpur 513757 1610 1222.41 2.19 2 290.66 190.66 147.19 47.19 Both Large Average Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 2
Dadeldhura 139602 1538 1506.09 N/A N/A 78.98 −21.02 181.35 81.35 1 Large GV > Pop-D 39.54 60.46 106866.07 1.31 1
Baitadi 242157 1519 1496.04 1.59 2 137.00 37.00 180.14 80.14 Both Large Average Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. 2
Darchula 133310 2322 2344.61 N/A N/A 75.42 −24.58 282.31 182.31 1 Large GV > Pop-D 62.46 37.54 66353.83 2.01 2
Total - 29164578 147181 137032.59 N/A 165

Average Population (μ) = 176755; Average Geographic Area ( α ¯ ) = 830.5; Note: If the delimited values reached ≥ 0.5, it has been taken as 1 electoral constituency unit.

Source: [46], [42], [17].

Based on the above-identified district-wise number of constituencies, the research has further delimited the actual delimitation, taking into account all the primary (Population and Geography) and secondary parameters (better connectivity, specific cultural and administrative features, public convenience, national security interest, etc.) in line with the spirit of the constitution and international standard practices. In addition to the Federal Constituencies, the research has developed further delimitation of State Constituencies with the concept of 1.5 of FC. The 1.5 concept has been considered in order to align with the size, strength, and feasibility of a small country like Nepal. However, the concept of 2 times bigger HoR for SCA is ideal and pragmatic for larger countries. Whereas, for the small country Nepal, the 1.5 times approach has been proposed and utilized for SCA, along with growing voices and feedback from numerous scholars from multiple walks of life in the country, for reviewing the number of states, MPs, MLAs, the electoral system, and the overall size of the governing structure. Anyway, to implement this concept of 1.5 in the real governing structure scenario, the Nepalese government needs to go through a constitutional amendment procedure, and this research, as policy feedback research, has it as one of its important objectives. However, the following are the one-to-one constituency delimitations of both FCA and SCA with their validity index (Table 6).

Table 6. One-to-one Comprehensive Electoral Constituency Delimitation (CECD) overview of Nepal.

Proposed Comprehensive Electoral Constituency Delimitation Overview of Nepal Current Delimitation
S.N. Name of District FCA for HoR SCA for SA LUs and Institutional Wise Electoral Constituency Delimitation Inclusion: LUs for FPTP and LUs & Institutional Population for PR Election Validity FCA SCA
60:40 - Ratio 1.5 of FCA Status Detail *60:40* 2 times
FPTP PR FPTP PR Name of Local Units (LUs) LUs Pop. Area Voter FP.. PR FP.. PR
1 Taplejung Area - 1 0.5 Area - 1 0.8 Sidingba Gaunpalika 1 10979 206.00 90327 Valid MV-M(a)EAdD:DM⇒AdM 1 0.5 2 1.1
Sirijangha Gaunpalika 1 14114 481.09
Pathivara Angwarak Gau. 1 11806 93.76
Area - 2 Aathrai Tribeni Gaunpalika 1 12296 88.83
Maiwakhola Gaunpalika 1 10213 138.00
Area - 2 Meringden Gaunpalika 1 11838 210.33 Valid AV-M(a)EAdD:D M⇒DM
Area - 3 Phungling Nagarpalika 1 28449 125.57
Mikwakhola Gaunpalika 1 7964 442.96
Phaktanglung Gaunpalika 1 11791 1858.51
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 1140 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
2 Pachthar Area - 1 0.8 Area - 1 1.3 Yangwarak Gaunpalika 1 16821 208.63 143408 Valid MV-M(a)NAdD:D M⇒DM 1 0.8 2 1.7
Falelung Gaunpalika 1 20361 207.14
Hilihang Gaunpalika 1 19085 123.01
Phidim Nagarpalika 1 48495 192.50
Area - 2 Falgunanda Gaunpalika 1 21289 107.53
Kummayak Gaunpalika 1 12746 129.30
Miklajung Gaunpalika 1 21061 166.61
Tumbewa Gaunpalika 1 11189 117.34
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 1353 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
3 Ilam Area - 1 1.3 Area - 1 2.0 Chulachuli Gaunpalika 1 23157 108.46 231809 Valid AV-M(i)NAD:AM⇒AdM 2 1.3 4 2.7
Mangsebung Gaunpalika 1 16810 142.41
Rong Gaunpalika 1 17367 155.06
Mai Nagarpalika 1 30732 246.11
Area - 2 Suryodaya Nagarpalika 1 54727 252.52
Area - 2 Maijogmai Gaunpalika 1 19131 172.41 Valid V-M(i)NAdD:AM⇒AdM
Sandakpur Gaunpalika 1 15444 156.01
Area - 3 Ilam Nagarpalika 1 50085 173.32
Deumai Nagarpalika 1 30969 191.63
Fakphokthum Gaunpalika 1 19706 108.79
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 1406 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
4 Jhapa Area -1 4.2 Area - 1 6.2 Birtamod Nagarpalika 1 116192 78.24 713537 Valid V-M(i)EAdD:AM⇒AdM 5 4.2 10 8.3
Arjundhara Nagarpalika 1 84018 109.86
Area - 2 Kachankawal Gaunpalika 1 41317 109.45
Haldibari Gaunpalika 1 32722 117.34
Area - 2 Bhadrapur Nagarpalika 1 70913 96.35 Valid MV-M(i)EAdD:AM⇒AdM
Area - 3 Mechinagar Nagarpalika 1 133073 192.85
Buddhashanti Gaunpalika 1 53010 79.78
Area - 3 Area - 4 Barhadashi Gaunpalika 1 37946 88.44 Valid MV-M(i)EAdD:AM⇒AdM
Kankai Nagarpalika 1 53148 80.98
Shivasataxi Nagarpalika 1 74077 145.87
Area - 5 Jhapa Gaunpalika 1 39302 94.12
Area - 4 Gauriganj Gaunpalika 1 35506 101.35 Valid MV-M(i)EAdD:AM⇒AdM
Gauradhaha Nagarpalika 1 60451 149.86
Area - 6 Damak Nagarpalika 1 107227 70.86
Kamal Gaunpalika 1 53894 104.57
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 5258 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
5 Morang Area-1 4.6 Area-1 6.8 Ratuwamai Nagarpalika 1 61139 142.15 783050 Valid AV-M(a)NAdD:AM⇒DM 6 4.6 12 9.1
Sunwarshi Nagarpalika 1 56034 106.40
Pathahrishanishchare Na. 1 72451 79.81
Area-2 Uralabari Nagarpalika 1 70908 74.62
Miklajung Gaunpalika 1 33167 158.98
Area-2 Letang Nagarpalika 1 38152 219.23 Valid MV-M(a)NAdD:A M⇒DM
Kanepokhari Gaunpalika 1 43193 82.83
Area-3 Rangeli Nagarpalika 1 57494 111.78
Belbari Nagarpalika 1 81771 132.79
Dhanpalthan Gaunpalika 1 45348 70.26
Area-4 Kerabari Gaunpalika 1 34504 219.83
Area-3 Sundarharaicha Na. 1 1[ 47 ]3 110.16 Valid MV-M(i)EAdD:AM⇒AdM
Gramthan Gaunpalika 1 36024 71.84
Area-5 (withBi. Ma. W.- 13,14,15, 16, 17, 18) Jahada Gaunpalika 1 47639 62.38
Katahari Gaunpalika 1 48510 51.59
Area-4 Biratnagar Mahanagarpalika 1 243927 77.00 Valid LV-M(a)EAdD:AM⇒AdM
Area-6 (with Bi. Ma. W. -1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,11,12,19)
Budhiganga Gaunpalika 1 51497 56.41
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 6185 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
6 Sunsari Area - 1 3.4 Area - 1 5.1 Ithari Upamahanagarpalika 1 197241 93.78 580945 Valid V-M(i)EAdD:AM⇒AdM 4 3.4 8 6.8
Gadhi Gaunpalika 1 38739 67.70
Area - 2 Barju Gaunpalika 1 36249 69.43
Duhabi Nagarpalika 1 66074 76.67
Area - 2 Dewanganj Gaunpalika 1 39030 53.56 Valid AV-M(i)EAdD:A M⇒DM
Harinagara Gaunpalika 1 49845 52.29
Area - 3 Ramdhuni Nagarpalika 1 63452 91.69
Dharan Upamahanagarpalika 1 166531 192.32
Area - 4 Inaruwa Nagarpalika 1 74914 77.92
Area - 3 Bhokraha Gaunpalika 1 49280 63.37 Valid MV-M(i)EAdD:AM⇒AdM
Area - 5 Barah Nagarpalika 1 91087 222.09
Koshi Gaunpalika 1 48804 75.98
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 5716 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
7 Dhankuta Area - 1 0.7 Area - 1 1.0 Chaubise Gaunpalika 1 17677 147.60 118425 Valid AV-M(i)NAdD:AdM⇒AdM 1 0.7 2 1.4
Chhathar Gaunpalika 1 16456 102.83
Dhankuta Nagarpalika 1 35983 111.00
Area - 2 Khalsa Shahidbhumi Ga. 1 17767 99.55
Mahalaxmi Nagarpalika 1 22182 129.39
Pakhribas Nagarpalika 1 19104 144.29
Sangurigadhi Gaunpalika 1 19561 166.44
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 1869 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
8 Terhathum Area - 1 0.4 Area - 1 0.6 Aathrai Gaunpalika 1 18156 167.07 73137 Valid MV-M(i)EAdD:AM⇒AdM 1 0.4 2 0.9
Phedap Gaunpalika 1 15169 110.83
Menchayam Gaunpalika 1 6678 70.09
Area - 2 Chhathar Gaunpalika 1 14197 133.93
Laligurans Nagarpalika 1 15329 90.27
Myanglung Nagarpalika 1 18750 100.21
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 452 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
9 Sankhuwasabha Area - 1 0.7 Area - 1 1.0 Dharmadevi Nagarpalika 1 16053 132.82 119630 Valid LV-M(i)EAdD:DM⇒AdM 1 0.7 2 1.4
Madi Nagarpalika 1 13273 110.10
Chainpur Nagarpalika 1 26799 123.69
Area - 2 Panchakhapan Nagarpalika 1 16348 148.03
Area - 2 Khandbari Nagarpalika 1 35565 122.78 Valid AV-M(i)EAdD:DM⇒AdM
Area - 3 Sabhapokhari Gaunpalika 1 9970 222.08
Chichila Gaunpalika 1 6577 88.63
Silichong Gaunpalika 1 10296 293.26
Makalu Gaunpalika 1 13424 519.45
Bhotkhola Gaunpalika 1 6438 639.01
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 3298 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
10 Bhojpur Area - 1 0.7 Area - 1 1.1 Aamchowk Gaunpalika 1 14968 184.89 125766 Valid MV-M(i)EAdD:DM⇒AdM 1 0.7 2 1.5
Tyamkemaiyung Ga. 1 15464 173.41
Ramprasad Rai Ga. 1 15673 158.83
Area - 2 Hatuwagadhi Gaunpalika 1 16175 142.61
Pauwadungma Gaunpalika 1 12107 118.86
Area - 2 Arun Gaunpalika 1 14591 154.76 Valid MV-M(i)EAdD:DM⇒AdM
Area - 3 Bhojpur Nagarpalika 1 26007 159.51
Shadananda Nagarpalika 1 29342 241.15
Salpasilichho Gaunpalika 1 12284 193.33
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 1312 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
11 Solukhumbu Area - 1 0.5 Area - 1 0.7 Solududhakunda Na. 1 25678 538.09 85515 Valid LV-M(a)EAdD:DM⇒AdM 1 0.5 2 1.0
Likhupike Gaunpalika 1 5334 124.38
Nechasalyan Gaunpalika 1 11381 94.49
Area - 2 Mapya Dudhkoshi Ga. 1 12648 167.67
Area - 2 Thulung Dudhkaushika Ga. 1 18354 144.60 Valid MV-M(a)EAdD:DM⇒AdM
Area - 3 Khumbupasanglahm Ga. 1 8720 1539.11
Mahakulung Gaunpalika 1 11847 648.05
Sotang Gaunpalika 1 9025 103.00
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 1864 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
12 Okhaldhunga Area - 1 0.7 Area - 1 1.1 Champadevi Gaunpalika 1 16311 126.91 122715 Valid AV-M(a)NAdD:D M⇒DM 1 0.7 2 1.4
Molung Gaunpalika 1 16440 112.00
Khijidemba Gaunpalika 1 15559 179.77
Likhu Gaunpalika 1 12104 88.03
Area - 2 Chisankhugadhi Ga. 1 13844 126.91
Manebhanjyang Ga. 1 19597 146.61
Siddhicharan Nagarpalika 1 27351 167.88
Sunkoshi Gaunpalika 1 17783 143.75
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 563 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
13 Khotang Area - 1 0.9 Area - 1 1.3 Barahapokhari Gaunpalika 1 11397 141.57 147120 Valid MV-M(i)EAdD:DM⇒AdM 1 0.9 2 1.7
Jantedhunga Gaunpalika 1 12016 128.68
Khotehang Gaunpalika 1 16846 164.09
Diprung Gaunpalika 1 16305 136.59
Area - 2 Halesi Tuwachung Na. 1 27078 280.17
Area - 2 Lamidada Rawabesi Ga. 1 11199 97.44 Valid MV-M(i)EAdD:DM⇒AdM
Ainselukhark Gaunpalika 1 13217 125.93
Kepilasagadhi Gaunpalika 1 13231 191.55
Area - 3 RupakotMajhuwagadhi Na. 1 43008 246.51
Sakela Gaunpalika 1 9623 79.99
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 1378 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
14 Udayapur Area - 1 1.4 Area - 1 2.1 Belaka Nagarpalika 1 51043 344.73 238926 Valid MV-M(a)NAdD:AM⇒DM 2 1.4 4 2.8
Chaudandigadhi Na. 1 53631 283.78
Area - 2 Triyuga Nagarpalika 1 102725 547.43
Area - 2 Rautamai Gaunpalika 1 20324 204.08 Valid AV-M(a)NAdD:A M⇒DM
Area - 3 Katari Nagarpalika 1 59507 424.89
SunkoshiLimchunbung Ga. 1 9689 106.80
Tapli Gaunpalika 1 13344 119.11
Udayapurgadhi Ga. 1 28926 269.51
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 1532 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
15 Saptari Area - 1 2.6 Area - 1 3.9 Hanumannagarkankalani Na. 1 52796 118.19 446402 Valid MV-M(i)EAdD:AM⇒AdM 4 2.6 8 5.2
Tilatha Koiladi Gaunpalika 1 33658 32.91
Mahadeva Gaunpalika 1 30315 34.97
Tirahut Gaunpalika 1 24034 37.81
Area - 2 Kanchanroop Nagarpalika 1 58466 117.34
Saptakoshi Nagarpalika 1 23510 60.25
Area - 2 AgnisairKrisnasavaran Ga. 1 31634 103.08 Valid V-M(i)EAdD:AM⇒AdM
Rupani Gaunpalika 1 29877 56.08
Area - 3 Chhinnamasta Gaunpalika 1 29946 38.71
Bishnupur Gaunpalika 1 27703 36.61
Rajbiraj Nagarpalika 1 70803 55.64
Area - 4 Rajgadh Gaunpalika 1 32462 47.9
Shambhunath Nagarpalika 1 39634 108.71
Area - 3 Dakneshwori Nagarpalika 1 47739 69.11 Valid MV-M(i)EAdD:AM⇒AdM
Area - 5 Bodebarsaien Nagarpalika 1 46017 58.93
Balan bihul gaupalika 1 23527 33.04
Khadak Nagarpalika 1 52778 96.77
Surunga Nagarpalika 1 49460 107.04
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 1896 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
16 Siraha Area - 1 2.6 Area -1 4.0 Lahan Nagarpalika 1 102031 167.17 453645 Valid V-M(a)NAdD:AM⇒AdM 4 2.6 8 5.3
Dhangadhimai Nagarpalika 1 53355 159.51
Area - 2 Bhagawanpur Gaunpalaika 1 23380 33.03
Navarajpur Gaunpalika 1 20788 32.18
Sakhuwanankarkatti Ga. 1 20844 32.84
Laxmipur patari Gaunpalika 1 31118 42.33
Area - 2 Sukhipur Nagarpalika 1 42033 54.78 Valid MV-M(i)EAdD:AM⇒AdM
Area - 3 Bariyarpatti Gaunpalika 1 29712 37.72
Aurahi Gaunpalika 1 26478 35.87
Arnama Gaunpalika 1 27899 37.76
Golbazar Nagarpalika 1 63885 111.94
Area - 4 Bishnupur Gaunpalika 1 22781 26.34
Naraha Gaunpalika 1 22760 29.28
Area - 3 Siraha Nagarpalika 1 95410 94.20 Valid MV-M(i)EAdD:AM⇒AdM
Area - 5 Kalyanpur Nagarpalika 1 58872 76.81
Mirchaiya Nagarpalika 1 59425 91.97
Karjanha Nagarpalika 1 38557 76.84
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 625 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
17 Dhanusa Area-1 3 Area - 1 4 Janaknandini Gaunpalika 1 27146 27.62 514571 Valid AV-M(a)NAdD:A M⇒DM 4 3 8 6
Kamala Nagarpalika 1 44597 65.85
Sahidnagar Nagarpalika 1 53812 57.37
Sabaila Nagarpalika 1 62282 64.47
Area - 2 Ganeshman Charnath Na. 1 44082 244.31
Dhanusadham Nagarpalika 1 52024 91.64
Area-2 Chhireshwornath Na. 1 51075 60.39 Valid V-M(i)EAdD:AM⇒AdM
Area - 3 Bideha Nagarpalika 1 37697 52.67
Hansapur Nagarpalika 1 44949 48.71
Mithila Bihari Nagarpalika 1 38273 37.60
Dhanauji Gaupalika 1 21942 22.00
Aurahi Gaunpalika 1 24053 36.32
Area-4 (Ja.Upa. W. - 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21, 22) Mithila Nagarpalika 1 48676 181.90
Area-3 Bateswor Gaunpalika 1 21742 28.14 Valid LV-M(a)EAdD:AM⇒AdM
Laxminiya Gaunpalika 1 31881 30.66
Janakpur Upa. Maha. Na. 1 194556 85.99
Area-5 (Ja.Upa. W. - 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 15, 16,18, 22, 23, 24, 25)
Nagarain Nagarpalika 1 38037 45.19
Mukhiyapatti Musaharniya Ga. 1 28208 26.84
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 2715 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
18 Mahottari Area - 1 2.5 Area - 1 4 Bhangaha Nagarpalika 1 55354 77.21 431282 Valid AV-M(a)NAdD:AM⇒AdM 4 2.5 8 5
Bardibas Nagarpalika 1 74361 315.57
Area - 2 Loharpatti Nagarpalika 1 45773 50.06
Matihani Nagarpalika 1 36136 29.02
Pipra Gaunpalika 1 40535 39.98
Area - 2 Area - 3 Jaleswor Nagarpalika 1 63802 44.26 Valid LV-M(a)EAdD:AM⇒AdM
Balawa Nagarpalika 1 49473 44.07
Mahottari Gaunpalika 1 28807 28.08
Area -4 Ramgopalpur Nagarpalika 1 36201 39.54
Aurahi Nagarpalika 1 37361 35.76
Area - 3 Gaushala Nagarpalika 1 72481 144.73 Valid MV-M(i)EAdD:AM⇒AdM
Area - 5 Manra Sisawa Nagarpalika 1 52191 42.75
Ekdanra Gaunpalika 1 31770 30.97
Samsi Gaunpalika 1 38585 21.57
Sonama Gaunpalika 1 43082 57.77
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 1082 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
19 Sarlahi Area - 1 3.0 Area - 1 4 Ishworpur Nagarpalika 1 68377 163.83 511606 Valid AV-M(a)NAdD:AM⇒AdM 4 3.0 8 6
Lalbandi Nagarpalika 1 66419 238.50
Chandranagar Gaunpalika 1 36908 47.50
Area - 2 Parsa Gaupalika 1 24005 22.980
Brahmapuri Gaunpalika 1 31378 33.93
Haripurwa Nagarpalika 1 38714 30.60
Area - 2 Malangawa Nagarpalika 1 54550 30.44 Valid MV-M(i)EAdD:AM⇒AdM
Area - 3 Kaudena Gaupalia 1 28702 25.345
Bishnu Gaunpalika 1 28570 27.71
Chakraghatta Gaunpalika 1 29550 27.50
Kabilasi Nagarpalika 1 44204 41.01
Haripur Nagarpalika 1 43233 73.45
Area - 4 Hariwan Nagarpalika 1 49988 86.12
Area - 3 Barahathawa Nagarpalika 1 81120 107.05 Valid V-M(i)EAdD:AM⇒AdM
Bagmati Nagarpalika 1 47106 101.18
Area - 5 Godaita Nagarpalika 1 54270 45.07
Balara Nagarpalika 1 47912 52.10
Ramnagar Gaunpalika 1 31366 51.59
Dhankaul Gaunpalika 1 27974 20.18
Basbariya Gaupalika 1 25905 28.548
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 2219 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
20 Sindhuli Area - 1 1.3 Area - 1 1.9 Dudhouli Nagarpalika 1 70207 390.39 215019 Valid AV-M(i)NAdD:A M⇒DM 2 1.3 4 2.5
Phikkal Gaunpalika 1 15910 186.06
Golanjor Gaunpalika 1 18737 184.13
Area - 2 Tinpatan Gaunpalika 1 34889 280.26
Area - 2 Kamalamai Nagarpalika 1 71016 482.57 Valid MV-M(a)NAdD:A M⇒DM
Area - 3 Ghanglekh Gaunpalika 1 12652 166.77
Hariharpurgadhi Ga. 1 26505 343.90
Marin Gaunpalika 1 28808 324.55
Sunkoshi Gaunpalika 1 18375 154.68
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 2927 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
21 Ramechhap Area - 1 1 Area - 1 1.6 Umakunda Gaunpalika 1 16590 451.99 187952 Valid MV-M(i)EAdD:DM⇒AdM 1 1 2 2.2
Likhu Gaunpalika 1 18325 124.51
Gokulganga Gaunpalika 1 17798 198.40
Area - 2 Ramechhap Nagarpalika 1 24971 202.45
Area - 2 Manthali Nagarpalika 1 39695 211.78 Valid LV-M(i)EAdD:DM⇒AdM
Area - 3 Khadadevi Gaunpalika 1 19312 150.70
Sunapati Gaunpalika 1 14658 86.98
Doramba Gaunpalika 1 17686 140.88
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 1267 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
22 Dolakha Area - 1 1 Area - 1 1 Tamakoshi Gaunpalika 1 15163 153.06 170321 Valid AV-M(i)EAdD:DM⇒AdM 1 1 2 2
Jiri Nagarpalika 1 16109 211.27
Gaurishankar Gaunpalika 1 15995 681.39
Area - 2 Bigu Gaunpalika 1 16490 663.20
Kalinchok Gaunpalika 1 21097 132.49
Area - 2 Baiteshwor Gaunpalika 1 17896 80.41 Valid LV-M(i)EAdD:DM⇒AdM
Area - 3 Melung Gaunpalika 1 15893 86.54
Sailung Gaunpalika 1 17923 128.67
Bhimeshwor Nagarpalika 1 34712 132.50
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 1489 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
23 Sindhupalchok Area - 1 1.6 Area - 1 2.4 Lisankhu Pakhar Gaunpalika 1 11750 98.61 274998 Valid V-M(a)NAdD:AM⇒AdM 2 1.6 4 3.2
Tripurasundari Gaunpalika 1 12014 94.28
Sunkoshi Gaunpalika 1 15176 72.84
Balefi Gaunpalika 1 17085 61.60
Barhabise Nagarpalika 1 24109 96.73
Area - 2 Bhotekoshi Gaunpalika 1 14318 278.31
Jugal Gaunpalika 1 18303 273.62
Area - 2 Panchpokhari Thangpal Ga. 1 20997 187.29 Valid AV-M(i)NAdD:AM⇒AdM
Helambu Gaunpalika 1 17497 287.26
Area - 3 Melamchi Nagarpalika 1 41063 158.17
ChautaraSangachokgadi Na. 1 42668 165.25
Indrawoti Gaunpalika 1 25365 105.09
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 2279 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
24 Kavrepalanchok Area - 1 1.9 Area - 1 2.9 Mahabharat Gaunpalika 1 16079 186 326611 Valid AV-M(i)NAdD:A M⇒DM 2 1.9 4 3.8
Khanikhola Gaunpalika 1 12201 132
Roshi Gaunpalika 1 23790 176
Namobuddha Nagarpalika 1 26160 102
Dhulikhel Nagarpalika 1 33726 55
Area - 2 Bethanchowk Gaunpalika 1 14959 101
Panauti Nagarpalika 1 51504 118
Area - 2 Banepa Nagarpalika 1 67690 55 Valid MV-M(a)NAdD:AM⇒AdM
Area - 3 Bhumlu Gaunpalika 1 15678 91
Chaurideurali Gaunpalika 1 14076 98
Temal Gaunpalika 1 16957 89
Mandandeupur Nagarpalika 1 30381 89
Panchkhal Nagarpalika 1 35521 103
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 5317 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
25 Lalitpur Area-1 1.6 Area-1 (with La. W.- 24,25,27,28, 29) 2.4 Bagmati Gaunpalika 1 11353 111.49 269256 Valid MV-M(a)EAdD:D M⇒DM 3 1.6 6 3.1
Mahankal Gaunpalika 1 8122 82.44
Konjyosom Gaunpalika 1 8989 44.16
Godawari Nagarpalika 1 97633 96.11
Lalitpur Mahanagarpalika 1 294098 36.12
Area-2
Mahalaxmi Nagarpalika 1 123116 26.51
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 8356 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
26 Bhaktapur Area - 1 1.2 Area - 1 1.8 Bhaktapur Nagarpalika 1 79136 6.89 205410 Valid LV-M(a)EAdD:AdM⇒AdM 2 1.2 4 2.4
Chagunarayan Nagarpalika 1 88083 62.98
Area - 2 Madhapur Thimi Na. 1 119756 11.47
Suryabinayak Nagarpalika 1 140085 42.45
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 5072 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
27 Kathmandu Area-1 (With Ktm.W-11, 12,13,14,19, 20,21,22, 23) 4.1 Area-1 (Ktm. W.- 11, 12, 14, 21,22, 23) 6.2 Kirtipur Nagarpalika 1 81578 14.76 710708 Valid LV-M(a)EAdD:DM⇒AdM 10 4.1 20 8.3
Kathmandu Mahanagarpalika 1 862400 49.45
Area-2 (With Ktm. W. - 15, 16,17, 18, 24, 25) Area-2 (With Ktm. W - 16, 17, 18) Valid LV-M(a)EAdD:DM⇒AdM
Tarkeshwor Nagarpalika 1 151479 54.95
Area-3 (With Ktm. W. 1, 3, 26, 27, 28) Area - 3(With Ktm. W. -3, 24, 25, 26) Tokha Nagarpalika 1 133755 17.11 Valid LV-M(a)EAdD:DM⇒AdM
Kathmandu Mahanagarpalika N/A N/A N/A
Area-4 (With Ktm. W. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7) Area - 5(With Ktm. W. -1, 2, 4) Valid LV-M(a)EAdD:DM⇒AdM
Budhanilkantha Nagarpalika 1 177557 34.80
Area-5 (with Ktm. w. 8, 9, 10,29, 30, 31, 32) Area-6 (with Ktm. W.) -8, 9, 31, 32) Kageshwori Manahara Na. 1 130433 27.38 Valid LV-M(a)EAdD:DM⇒AdM
Kathmandu Mahanagarpalika N/A N/A N/A
Area-6(Except Ktm.) Area-7 Dakshinkali Nagarpalika 1 26372 42.68 Valid LV-M(a)EAdD:DM⇒AdM
Chandragiri Nagarpalika 1 136860 43.92
Area-8 (with Ktm. W.-13, 15, 19, 20) Nagarjun Nagarpalika 1 115437 29.85
Kathmandu Mahanagarpalika N/A N/A N/A
Area-7(Except Ktm.) Area-9 (with Go.N.W.- 1) Shankharapur Nagarpalika 1 29318 60.21 Valid LV-M(a)EAdD:DM⇒AdM
Gokarneshwor Nagarpalika 1 149366 58.50
Area-10(with Ktm. W. - 5,6,7, 10,27,28,9,30; Go. N. W.- 2, 3,4,5, 6,7 ,8,9)
Kathmandu Mahanagarpalika N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 47032 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Shivapuri Gaunpalika 1 17203 101.50
28 Nuwakot Area - 1 1.4 Area - 1 2.2 Panchakanya Gaunpalika 1 13818 53.47 247868 Valid LV-M(a)NAdD:A M⇒DM 2 1.4 4 2.9
Dupcheshwar Gaunpalika 1 21005 131.62
Tadi Gaunpalika 1 15933 69.80
Suryagadhi Gaunpalika 1 14919 49.09
Likhu Gaunpalika 1 17728 47.88
Kakani Gaunpalika 1 24504 87.97
Area - 2 Belkotgadhi Nagarpalika 1 35224 155.60
Tarkeshwar Gaunpalika 1 14184 72.62
Bidur Nagarpalika 1 59227 130.01
Kispang Gaunpalika 1 14235 82.57
Meghang Gaunpalika 1 12668 97.83
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 2743 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
29 Rasuwa Area - 1 0.2 Area - 1 0.4 Gosaikunda Gaunpalika 1 7788 978.77 41471 Valid MV-M(a)EAdD:AdM⇒AdM 1 0.2 2 0.5
ParbatikundAamachodimo Ga. 1 6673 682.23
Uttargaya Gaunpalika 1 8555 104.51
Area - 2 Kalika Gaunpalika 1 10115 192.54
Naukunda Gaunpalika 1 12344 126.99
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 1214 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
30 Dhading Area - 1 1.6 Area - 1 2.4 Thakre Gaunpalika 1 32374 96.41 275280 Valid V-M(a)NAdD:AM⇒AdM 2 1.6 4 3.2
Galchi Gaunpalika 1 23733 129.08
Gajuri Gaunpalika 1 28634 138.66
Benighat Rorang Ga. 1 33854 29.17
Area - 2 Siddhalek Gaunpalika 1 22214 106.09
Jwalamukhi Gaunpalika 1 21338 114.04
Area - 2 Nilkantha Nagarpalika 1 58828 197.70 Valid MV-M(a)NAdD:A M⇒DM
Area - 3 Netrawati Gaunpalika 1 11310 181.78
Tripurasundari Gaunpalika 1 21937 271.23
Khaniyabash Gaunpalika 1 10287 120.80
Gangjamuna Gaunpalika 1 19265 152.72
Dhunibesi Nagarpalika 1 29149 96.30
Rubi Valley Gaunpalika 1 10781 401.85
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 2006 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
31 Makwanpur Area - 1 1.8 Area - 1 2.8 Bagmati Gaunpalika 1 30425 311.79 315334 Valid AV-M(a)NAdD:A M⇒DM 2 1.8 4 3.7
Bakaiya Gaunpalika 1 40907 393.75
Area - 2 Makawanpurgadhi Ga. 1 24461 148.72
Bhimphedi Gaunpalika 1 21516 245.27
Area - 3 Indrasarowar Gaunpalika 1 13534 97.34
Area - 2 Thaha Nagarpalika 1 38870 191.12 Valid LV-M(i)EAdD:AM⇒AdM
Area - 4 Kailash Gaunpalika 1 21856 204.48
Raksirang Gaunpalika 1 25996 226.70
Area - 3 Area - 5 Hetauda Upamahanagar 1 193576 261.59 Valid V-M(i)EAdD:AM⇒AdM
Manahari Gaunpalika 1 47353 199.52
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 7579 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
32 Rautahat Area - 1 2.5 Area - 1 3.8 Rajdevi Nagarpalika 1 35658 26.00 436611 Valid MV-M(i)EAdD:AM⇒AdM 4 2.5 8 5.1
Durga Bhagawati Ga. 1 22864 20.00
Yemunamai Gaupalika 1 28414 15.00
Madav Narayan Na. 1 40894 48.00
Area - 2 Gadhimai Nagarpalika 1 49135 49.44
Birndaban Nagarpalika 1 49742 95.40
Garuda Nagarpalika 1 60857 44.46
Area - 2 Area - 3 Gaur Nagarpalika 1 39846 25.00 Valid LV-M(a)EAdD:AM⇒AdM
Ishanath Nagarpalika 1 51855 35.17
Rajpur Nagarpalika 1 54083 31.41
Paroha Nagarpalika 1 45702 37.45
Area - 4 Baudhimai Nagarpalika 1 39325 35.34
Debahi Gonahi Nagarpalika 1 38690 33.99
Area - 3 Katahariya Nagarpalika 1 45821 40.69 Valid AV-M(a)NAdD:AM⇒AdM
Maulapur Nagarpalika 1 32325 44.16
Area - 5 Phatuwa Bijayapur Na. 1 42218 55.83
Gujara Nagarpalika 1 54033 150.33
Chandrapur Nagarpalika 1 81807 249.96
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 304 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
33 Bara Area - 1 2.7 Area - 1 4.1 Kolhabi Nagarpalika 1 51182 157.40 465784 Valid AV-M(a)NAdD:A M⇒DM 4 2.7 8 5.4
Nijgadh Nagarpalika 1 37687 289.43
Baragadi Gaunpalika 1 29555 39.29
Adarsh Kotwal Gaunpalika 1 31364 36.25
Area - 2 Simroungadh Nagarpalika 1 54878 42.65
Pacharauta Nagarpalika 1 40524 42.80
Area - 2 Mahagadhimai Nagarpalika 1 59424 55.32 Valid MV-M(a)EAdD:AM⇒AdM
Area -3 Subarna Gaunpalika 1 35141 36.84
Devtal Gaunpalika 1 25361 23.31
Kalaiya Upamahanagar. 1 136222 108.94
Area -4 Karaiyamai Gaunpalika 1 29165 47.69
Area - 3 Jitpur Simara Upa. Mah. Na. 1 127307 309.67 Valid MV-M(i)EAdD:AM⇒AdM
Area - 5 Parwanipur Gaunpalika 1 24745 29.25
Bisrampur Gaupalika 1 24892 19.00
Prasauni Gaunpalika 1 25414 15.00
Pheta Gaunpalika 1 28395 18.00
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 1881 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
34 Parsa Area - 1 2.2 Area-1 3.3 Parsagadi Nagarpalika 1 41569 99.69 376513 Valid MV-M(a)EAdD:AM⇒AdM 4 2.2 8 4.4
Birgunj Mahanagarpalika 1 272382 75.24
Area-2 Bahudarmai Nagarpalika 1 43478 31.55
Bindabasini Gaunpalika 1 24991 26.04
Area - 2 Sakhuwa Prasauni Gaunpalika 1 35399 74.27 Valid V-M(a)NAdD:A M⇒DM
Pokhariya Nagarpalika 1 37675 56.81
Pakahamainpur Gaunpalika 1 22585 21.26
Area - 3 Chhipaharmai Gaunpalika 1 29082 24.90
Dhobini Gaunpalika 1 22606 24.41
Kalikamai Ga. (Belwa) 1 23480 56.85
Jaganathpur Gaunpalika 1 32649 45.29
Paterwasugauli Gaunpalika 1 25498 103.11
Jirabhawani Gaupalika 1 22677 53.00
Thori Gaupalika 1 17219 274.00
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 3181 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
35 Chitwan Area-1 (with Bha.N. W - 6, 7, 13,14, 21, 22, 23, 24,25, 27, 28) 2.6 Area-1 (withBha. N. W. - 8, 13, 22, 23) 3.9 Ratnangar Nagarpalika 1 89905 68.68 442082 Valid V-M(i)EAdD:AM⇒AdM 3 2.6 6 5.1
Bharatpur Mahanagarpalika 1 369268 432.95
Area-2 (with Bha. N. W. - 6, 7, 9, 10,11, 12, 14, 15, 24, 26)
Area-2 (with Bha. N. W - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 26, 29) Valid V-M(i)EAdD:AM⇒AdM
Kalika Nagarpalika 1 52164 149.08
Area-3 (withBha. N W - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 16, 17, 18,19, 20, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29) Bharatpur Ma.Na. Wards -1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 2 N/A N/A N/A
Ichchhyakamana Gaunpalika 1 27643 166.73
Area-3 Area - 5 Rapti Nagarpalika 1 66617 212.31 Valid MV-M(a)NAdD:AM⇒AdM
Khairahani Nagarpalika 1 67385 85.55
Madi Nagarpalika 1 38295 218.24
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 8582 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
36 Gorkha Area-1 (withG.N W - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) 1.3 Area - 1 2.0 Gandaki Gaunpalika 1 21394 123.86 229058 Valid LV-M(i)EAdD:AM⇒AdM 2 1.3 4 2.7
Sahid Lakhan Gaunpalika 1 23076 148.97
Area-2 (withG. N. W. - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) Bhimsen Gaunpalika 1 16986 101.25
Gorkha Nagarpalika 1 52468 131.86
Area-2 (With GN W - 10, 11, 12, 13, 14) Area-3 (Go. N.W.- 10, 11,12, 13, 14) Valid LV-M(i)EAdD:AM⇒AdM
Palungtar Nagarpalika 1 37409 158.62
Area - 4 Siranchok Gaunpalika 1 19719 121.66
Area-3 Barpak Sulikot Gaunpalika 1 22636 200.63 Valid V-M(a)EAdD:A M⇒DM
Ajirkot Gaunpalika 1 12832 198.05
Area - 5 Chum Nubri Gaunpalika 1 5932 1648.65
Dharche Gaunpalika 1 14263 651.52
Aarughat Gaunpalika 1 21572 160.79
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 2740 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
37 Lamjung Area - 1 0.8 Area - 1 1.2 Dordi Gaunpalika 1 16050 350.93 137124 Valid MV-M(i)EAdD:DM⇒AdM 1 0.8 2 1.6
Besishahar Nagarpalika 1 38232 127.64
Area - 2 Rainas Nagarpalika 1 17402 71.97
Dudhpokhari Gaunpalika 1 8592 153.33
Area - 2 Sundarbazar Nagarpalika 1 27043 72.05 Valid MV-M(i)EAdD:DM⇒AdM
Area - 3 Kwholasothar Gaunpalika 1 7960 175.37
MadhyaNepal Nagarpalika 1 21971 113.86
Marsyangdi Gaunpalika 1 17080 597.25
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 1522 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
38 Tanahu Area - 1 1.5 Area - 1 2 Bhanu Nagarpalika 1 42794 184 254397 Valid V-M(i)NAdD:AM⇒AdM 2 1.5 4 3
Byas Nagarpalika 1 78939 248
Area - 2 Abukhaireni Gaunpalika 1 22252 128
Bandipur Gaunpalika 1 18532 102
Area - 2 Devghat Gaunpalika 1 14584 159 Valid AV-M(i)NAdD:AM⇒AdM
Rhishing Gaunpalika 1 17918 215
Ghiring Gaunpalika 1 14334 126
Area - 3 Bhimad Nagarpalika 1 29248 129
Myagde Gaunpalika 1 23578 115
Shuklagandaki Nagarpalika 1 55620 165
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 3354 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
39 Syangja Area - 1 1.4 Area - 1 2.2 Kaligandagi Gaunpalika 1 17955 73.51 248816 Valid LV-M(a)NAdD:A M⇒DM 2 1.4 4 2.9
Galyang Nagarpalika 1 31034 122.71
Chapakot Nagarpalika 1 22969 120.59
Waling Nagarpalika 1 50488 128.40
Area - 2 Bhirkot Nagarpalika 1 22645 78.23
Arjunchaupari Gaunpalika 1 14045 57.22
Aandhikhola Gaunpalika 1 13094 69.61
Biruwa Gaunpalika 1 14001 95.79
Harinas Gaunpalika 1 13191 87.48
Phedikhola Gaunpalika 1 10899 56.73
Putalibazar Nagarpalika 1 41743 147.21
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 960 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
40 Kaski Area-1 (withP.L.M. W - 5, 6, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24) 1.8 Area-1 (with PLM W - 5, 6, 7,8, 18, 23, 24) 2.7 Annapurna Gaunpalika 1 22099 33.33 308572 Valid V-M(a)NAdD:AM⇒AdM 3 1.8 6 3.6
Pokhara Lekhnath Maha. Na. N/A N/A N/A
Area-2(with PLM W. - 19, 21, 22, 25) Machhapuchchhre Ga. 1 22898 544.58
Pokhara Lekhnath Maha. Na. 1 513504 464.24
Area-2 (P.L.MW- 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 13, 16, 20) Area-3 (with PLM W -1, 2, 3,4, 11, 12, 13, 15, 20) Valid V-M(a)NAdD:AM⇒AdM
Madi Gaunpalika 1 16142 563
Area-3 (withP.L.M. W - 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 17, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33) Area-4 (with PLM W. - 9, 10, 14, 15, 17, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33) Pokhara Lekhnath Maha. Na. N/A N/A N/A Valid V-M(a)NAdD:AM⇒AdM
Rupa Gaunpalika 1 14891 94.81
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 10517 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
41 Manang Area - 1 0.04 Area - 1 0.1 Chame Gaunpalika 1 1276 78.86 7000 Valid LV-M(a)EAdD:AdM⇒AdM 1 0.04 2 0.1
Nashong Gaunpalika 1 1671 709.58
Area - 2 Narpa Bhumi Gaunpalika 1 396 837.54
Neshyang Gaunpalika 1 1595 694.63
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 720 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Area -1 LoGhekarDamodarkunda Ga. 1 1292 1344 MV-
Lomanthang Gaunpalika 1 1430 727
42 Mustang Area -1 0.1 0.1 Varagung Muktikshetra Ga. 1 2036 886 11328 Valid M(a)EAdD:AdM⇒AdM 1 0.1 2 0.2
Area - 2 Gharapjhong Gaunpalika 1 3712 316
Thasang Gaunpalika 1 2856 289
N/A N/A Institutional - 3126 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
43 Myagdi Area - 1 0.5 Area - 1 0.8 Annapurna Gaunpalika 1 12323 556.41 86397 Valid MV-M(a)EAdD:DM⇒AdM 1 0.5 2 1
Raghuganga Gaunpalika 1 14114 379
Area - 2 Beni Nagarpalika 1 32697 76.57
Area - 2 Mangala Gaunpalika 1 14688 89 Valid LV-M(a)EAdD:DM⇒AdM
Area - 3 Dhaulagiri Gaunpalika 1 12616 1037
Malika Gaunpalika 1 18332 147
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 2263 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
44 Parbat Area - 1 0.7 Area - 1 1.1 Bihadi Gaunpalika 1 10828 44.80 125466 Valid MV-M(a)NAdD:AM⇒AdM 1 0.7 2 1.5
Painyu Gaunpalika 1 12725 42.65
Mahashila Gaunpalika 1 8116 49.38
Phalebas Naparpalika 1 20468 85.70
Area - 2 Jaljala Gaunpalika 1 21119 82.26
Kushma Nagarpalika 1 38101 93.18
Modi Gaunpalika 1 18794 143.60
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 736 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
45 Baglung Area - 1 1.1 Area - 1 1.7 Jaimuni Nagarpalika 1 24628 118.71 193381 Valid LV-M(i)EAdD:AM⇒AdM 2 1.1 4 2.3
Baglung Nagarpalika 1 56102 98.01
Area - 2 Kanthekhola Gaupalika 1 22526 82.88
Bareng Gaunpalika 1 11158 75.28
Area - 2 Galkot Nagarpalika 1 30588 194.39 Valid MV-M(a)NAdD:A M⇒DM
Tara Khola Gaunpalika 1 10120 129.53
Area - 3 Badigad Gaunpalika 1 28839 178.68
Dhorpatan Nagarpalika 1 30068 222.85
Nisikhola Gaunpalika 1 23119 244.37
Taman Khola Gaunpalika 1 9982 178.02
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 2081 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
46 Gulmi Area - 1 1.3 Area - 1 2.0 Ruru Gaunpalika 1 16597 67.38 229549 Valid LV-M(a)NAdD:A M⇒DM 2 1.3 4 2.7
Chatrakot Gaunpalika 1 19357 87.01
Gulmidurbar Gaunpalika 1 19296 79.99
Resunga Nagarpalika 1 31551 83.74
Satyawatai Gaupalika 1 19473 115.92
Kaligandaki Gaunpalika 1 15044 101.04
Area - 2 Musikot Nagarpalika 1 28454 114.74
Chandrakot Gaunpalika 1 18662 105.73
Dhurkot Gaunpalika 1 18814 86.32
Madane Gaunpalika 1 20022 94.52
Isma Gaunpalika 1 18529 81.88
Malika Gaunpalika 1 20075 92.49
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 620 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
47 Palpa Area - 1 1.2 Area - 1 1.8 Nisdi Gaunpalika 1 18120 194.50 207436 Valid MV-M(a)NAdD:AM⇒AdM 2 1.2 4 2.4
Rampur Nagarpalika 1 40883 123.34
Purbakhola Gaunpalika 1 16052 138.05
Area - 2 Rambha Gaunpalika 1 17155 94.12
Mathagadhi Gaunpalika 1 24053 215.49
Area - 2 Bagnaskali Gaunpalika 1 18497 84.17 Valid MV-M(a)NAdD:AM⇒AdM
Tinau Gaunpalika 1 17777 202.00
Area - 3 Tansen Nagarpalika 1 50792 109.80
Rainadevi Chhahara Ga. 1 23149 175.88
Ribdikot Gaunpalika 1 15473 124.55
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 3076 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
48 Eastern Nawalparasi Area - 1 1.6 Area - 1 2.3 Binayee Triveni Gaunpalika 1 38370 267.13 268526 Valid AV-M(i)NAdD:AM⇒AdM 2 1.6 4 3.1
Madhyabindu Nagarpalika 1 61091 233.35
Hupsekot Gaunpalika 1 26583 189.21
Area - 2 Bungdikali Gaunpalika 1 11338 91.87
Bulingtar Gaupalika 1 14637 147.68
Area - 2 Gaidakot Nagarpalika 1 79349 159.93 Valid MV-M(i)EAdD:AM⇒AdM
Area - 3 Kawaswoti Nagarpalika 1 86821 108.34
Devchuli Nagarpalika 1 58003 112.72
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 1887 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
49 Western Nawalparasi Area - 1 1.5 Area - 1 2.2 Tribeni Susta Gaunpalika 1 40655 112.17 254157 Valid MV-M(i)EAdD:DM⇒AdM 2 1.5 4 3.0
Bardaghat Nagarpalika 1 76703 162.05
Area - 2 Sunwal Nagarpalika 1 72085 139.10
Area 2 Ramgram Nagarpalika 1 64017 128.32 Valid MV-M(i)EAdD:DM⇒AdM
Area - 3 Pratappur Gaunpalika 1 49897 87.55
Sarawal Gaunpalika 1 42207 73.19
Palhi Nandan Gaunpalika 1 38186 44.67
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 3118 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
50 Rupandehi Area-1 3.9 Area-1 5.9 Omsatiya Gaunpalika 1 41141 48.54 672523 Valid V-M(i)EAdD:AM⇒AdM 5 3.9 10 7.8
Rohini Gaunpalika 1 43327 64.62
Tilottama Nagarpalika 1 149479 126.19
Area-2 (with Bu. Upa. W.- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 20, 21, 22) Devdaha Nagarpalika 1 72457 136.95
Area-2 Butwal Upamahanagarpalika 1 194335 101.61 Valid V-M(i)EAdD:AM⇒AdM
Area-3 (with Bu. Upa. W. -14, 15, 16, 17, 18)
Sainamaina Nagarpalika 1 78393 162.18
Kanchan Gaunpalika 1 42528 58.51
Area-3 Area - 4 Sammarimai Gaunpalika 1 43044 50.78 Valid V-M(i)EAdD:A
Marchawari Gaunpalika 1 40880 48.55
Kotahimai Gaunpalika 1 45975 58.26
Area-5 Lumbini Sanskritik Nagarpali. 1 87383 112.21 M⇒AdM
Gaidahawa Gaunpalika 1 56149 96.79
Area-4 Sudhdhodhan Gaunpalika 1 41907 57.66 Valid LV-M(a)EAdD:AM⇒AdM
Area-6 Mayadevi Gaunpalika 1 56170 72.44
Siddharthanagar Nagarpalika 1 74436 36.03
Siyari Gaunpalika 1 44985 66.17
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 9368 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
51 Kapilbastu Area - 1 2.3 Area - 1 3.5 Kapilbastu Nagarpalika 1 88874 136.91 396265 Valid MV-M(i)EAdD:AM⇒AdM 3 2.3 6 4.6
Yashodhara Gaunpalika 1 44900 67.56
Area - 2 Suddhodhan Gaunpalika 1 52861 91.69
Mayadevi Gaunpalika 1 55972 88.53
Area - 2 Area - 3 Banganga Nagarpalika 1 96714 233.68 Valid V-M(a)NAdD:AM⇒DM
Buddhabhumi Nagarpalika 1 76507 366.67
Area - 4 Maharajgunj Nagarpalika 1 64645 112.21
Area - 3 Krishnanagar Nagarpalika 1 70111 96.66 Valid V-M(a)NAdD:AM⇒AdM
Area - 5 Bijayanagar Gaunpalika 1 43291 173.19
Shivaraj Nagarpalika 1 84810 284.07
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 4276 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
52 Arghakhanchi Area - 1 1.0 Area - 1 1.5 Sitganga Nagarpalika 1 37691 610.43 171652 Valid MV-M(a)NAdD:A M⇒DM 1 1.0 2 2.0
Panini Gaunpalika 1 22291 151.42
Chhatradev Gaunpalika 1 21611 87.62
Area - 2 Bhumekasthan Nagarpalika 1 28192 159.13
Malarani Gaupalikla 1 24150 101.06
Sandhikharka Nagarpalika 1 42492 129.42
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 659 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
53 Pyuthan Area - 1 1.0 Area - 1 1.4 Sarumarani Gaunpalika 1 19783 157.97 165406 Valid LV-M(a)NAdD:A M⇒DM 1 1.0 2 1.9
Ayirabati Gaunpalika 1 20428 156.75
Mallarani Gaunpalika 1 15646 80.09
Mandavi Gaunpalika 1 15863 113.08
Sworgadwary Nagarpalika 1 32037 224.70
Area - 2 Pyuthan Nagarpalika 1 42130 128.96
Gaumukhi Gaunpalika 1 25980 139.04
Jhimruk Gaunpalika 1 26130 106.93
Naubahini Gaunpalika 1 32682 213.41
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 1340 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
54 Rolpa Area - 1 0.9 Area - 1 1.3 Runtigadi Gaunpalika 1 28291 232.69 149597 Valid V-M(a)NAdD:AM⇒AdM 1 0.9 2 1.7
Rolpa Nagarpalika 1 35376 270.42
Area - 2 Lungri Gaunpalika 1 26325 135.23
Sunil Smriti Gaunpalika 1 30617 156.55
Area - 2 Sunchhahari Gaunpalika 1 17241 277.62 Valid V-M(a)NAdD:AM⇒AdM
Area - 3 Pariwartan Gaunpalika 1 21671 163.01
Tribeni Gaunpalika 1 23412 205.39
Madi Gaunpalika 1 18056 129.05
Gangadev Gaunpalika 1 21503 124.38
Thawang Gaunpalika 1 10851 191.07
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 1450 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
55 E. Rukum Area-1 0.2 Area-1 (with Si, Ga, W. -5, 6, 7, 8) 0.3 Bhume Gaunpalika 1 19829 273.67 34772 Valid MV-M(a)EAdD:AdM⇒AdM 1 0.2 2 0.4
Sisne Gaupalika 1 18534 327.12
Area-2 (with Si, Ga, W. -1, 2, 3, 4)
Putha Uttarganga Gaupalika 1 18308 560.34
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 115 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
56 W. Rukum Area - 1 0.6 Area - 1 0.9 Aathbiskot Nagarpalika 1 35917 560.34 106660 Valid V-M(a)NAdD:D M⇒DM 1 0.6 2 1.2
Banfikot Gaupalika 1 21033 190.42
Sani Bheri Gaupalika 1 24759 133.80
Area - 2 Chaurjahari Nagarpalika 1 28956 107.38
Musikot Nagarpalika 1 34270 136.06
Tribeni Gaupalika 1 20525 85.49
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 1280 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
57 Salyan Area - 1 1.0 Area - 1 1.4 Kapurkot Gaupalika 1 17526 119.21 162449 Valid AV-M(a)NAdD:A M⇒DM 1 1.0 2 1.9
Tribeni Gaunpalika 1 16664 119.11
Kalimati Gaunpalika 1 22206 500.72
Chhatreshwori Gaupalika 1 21242 150.69
Area - 2 Sharada Nagarpalika 1 34663 198.34
Siddha Kumakh Gaunpalika 1 13127 89.36
Area - 2 Bagchaur Nagarpalika 1 34021 163.14 Valid MV-M(a)NAdD:AM⇒AdM
Area - 3 Bangad kupinde Nagarpalika 1 32940 338.21
Darma Gaunpalika 1 20139 81.46
Kumakh Malika Gaunpalika 1 24859 177.28
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 1128 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
58 Dang Area -1 (with Gho, Up. Ma. W. -1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 18, 19) 2.5 Area-1 (with Gho, Up. Ma. W.- 1, 2, 4, 8, 9,10, 11, 12,14,18,19) 3.8 Banglachuli Gaunpalika 1 22373 245.14 431686 Valid V-M(i)NAdD:AM⇒AdM 3 2.5 6 5.0
Ghorahi Upamahanagarpalika 1 200530 522.21
Area-2 Rapti Gaunpalika 1 52123 161.07
Area - 2(with Gho. Up. Ma. W.- 3, 5, 6, 7; and La.N. W.-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) Gadhawa Gaunpalika 1 45898 358.57 Valid V-M(i)NAdD:AM⇒AdM
Area-3 (with Gho. Up. Ma. W.-3, 5, 6, 7; Ra.Ga. W.1, 2, 3, 4, 5; La.N. W.-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.) Lamahi Nagarpalika 1 59050 326.66
Ghorahi Upamahanagarpalika N/A N/A N/A
Rajpur Gaunpalika 1 28346 577.33
Area - 3(with La.N. W.-7, 8, 9) Area-4 (with Ra. Ga. W. - 6, 7;La.N. W.- 7, 8, 9;Da.G. W.- 2;T.Up.Ma.W.-11, 12, 13, 14) Valid V-M(i)NAdD:AM⇒AdM
Lamahi Nagarpalika N/A N/A N/A
Tulsipur Upamahanagarpalika N/A N/A N/A
Dangisharan Gaunpalika 1 23668 110.70
Area -5(with T. Up. M. W.2, 5, 6, 8, 10; Da.G.W. - 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)
Area 4 Babai Gaunpalika 1 30968 257.48
Tulsipur Upamahanagarpalika 1 179755 384.63 Valid V-M(a)NAdD:A M⇒DM
Area-6 (with T.Up.M. W.-1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
Shantinagar Gaunpalika 1 27641 116.02
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 4641 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
59 Banke Area-1 2.0 Area-1 3.1 Narainapur Gaunpalika 1 43206 172.34 350371 Valid V-M(a)NAdD:AM⇒DM 3 2.0 6 4.1
Rapti Sonari Gaunpalika 1 66445 1041.73
Area-2 (with Ne.Upa. W. -13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23) Duduwa Gaunpalika 1 43135 91.10
Area-2 Nepalganj Upamahanagarpa. 1 164444 85.94 Valid LV-M(a)EAdD:AM⇒AdM
Area-3 (with Ne. Upa. W. - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 20)
Janaki Gaunpalika 1 46141 63.32
Area-3 Area-4 (withKo. N. W. - 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15) Khajura Gaunpalika 1 62789 101.91 Valid MV-M(i)EAdD:AM⇒AdM
Kohalpur Nagarpalika 1 101667 184.26
Area-5 (withKo. N. W. - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
Baijanath Gaunpalika 1 69472 141.67
N/A N/A Institutional N/A 5895 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
60 Bardiya Area - 1 1.9 Area - 1 2.8 Badhaiyatal Gaunpalika 1 52818 115.19 323266 Valid AV-M(a)NAdD:A M⇒DM 2 1.9 4 4.0
Bansgadhi Nagarpalika 1 63252 206.08
Area - 2 Gulariya Nagarpalika 1 74505 118.21
Barbardiya Nagarpalika 1 72533 226.09
Area - 2 Thakurbaba Nagarpalika 1 49420 104.57 Valid MV-M(i)EAdD:AM⇒AdM
Area - 3 Madhuwan Nagarpalika 1 50739 129.73
Rajapur Nagarpalika 1 60831 127.08
Geruwa Gaunpalika 1 33514 78.41
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 2288 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
61 Surkhet Area - 1 1.4 Area - 1 2.2 Gurbhakot Nagarpalika 1 48216 228.62 248943 Valid V-M(a)NAdD:AM⇒AdM 2 1.4 4 2.9
Simta Gaunpalika 1 24083 241.64
Area - 2 Lekbesi Nagarpalika 1 31710 180.92
Chingad Gaupalika 1 15600 170.19
Area - 2 Area-3 (withBi.N. W-2, 3, 9, 10, 11) Bheriganga Nagarpalika 1 48203 256.20 Valid V-M(a)NAdD:AM⇒AdM
Birendranagar Nagarpalika 1 153863 245.06
Area-4 (withBi.N.W-1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)
Area - 3 Barahtal Gaunpalika 1 25943 455.09 Valid V-M(i)EAdD:AM⇒AdM
Area - 5 Chaukune Gaunpalika 1 26950 381.01
Panchpuri Nagarpalika 1 35839 329.90
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 4719 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
62 Dailekh Area - 1 1.0 Area - 1 1.4 Bhagawatimai Gaunpalika 1 18206 151.52 161204 Valid V-M(a)NAdD:AM⇒AdM 2 1.0 4 1.9
Narayan Nagarpalika 1 26111 110.63
Naumule Gaunpalika 1 19687 228.59
Mahabu Gaunpalika 1 18059 110.80
Area - 2 Dungeshwor Gaunpalika 1 14533 105.19
Gurans Gaunpalika 1 21189 164.79
Area - 2 Dullu Nagarpalika 1 39143 156.77 Valid MV-M(a)NAdD:AM⇒AdM
Area - 3 Chamunda Bindrasaini Na.Pa. 1 26559 90.60
Aathabis Nagarpalika 1 31092 168.00
Bhairabi Gaunpalika 1 18767 110.46
Thantikandh Gaunpalika 1 18301 88.22
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 666 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
63 Jajarkot Area - 1 0.6 Area - 1 0.9 Chhedagad Nagarpalika 1 37877 284.20 107091 Valid MV-M(i)EAdD:AM⇒AdM 1 0.6 2 1.2
Shiwalaya Gaunpalika 1 14776 134.26
Are - 2 Bheri Nagarpalika 1 37892 219.77
Area - 2 Tribeni Nalagad Na. 1 28922 387.44 Valid AV-M(i)EAdD:AM⇒AdM
Area - 3 Barekot Gaunpalika 1 22005 577.50
Junichande Gaunpalika 1 23771 346.21
Kuse Gaunpalika 1 23058 273.97
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 1059 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
64 Dolpa Area - 1 0.1 Area - 1 0.2 Chharka Tangsong Ga. 1 1672 345.57 24115 Valid MV-M(a)EAdD:AdM⇒AdM 1 0.1 2 0.3
Kaike Gaunpalika 1 3965 466.60
Thuli Bheri Nagarpalika 1 9861 421.34
Dolpo Buddha Gaunpalika 1 2420 377.38
Area - 2 Shey Phoksundo Gaunpalika 1 3635 123.07
Jagadulla Gaunpalika 1 2575 83.30
Mudkechula Gaunpalika 1 5803 250.08
Tripurasundari Nagarpalika 1 12233 393.54
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 610 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
65 Jumla Area - 1 0.4 Area - 1 0.6 Guthichaur Gaunpalika 1 10922 427.00 71739 Valid V-M(i)EAdD:DM⇒AdM 1 0.4 2 0.8
Patrasi Gaunpalika 1 16824 814.07
Kanakasundari Gaunpalika 1 13625 225.39
Area - 2 Chandannath Nagarpalika 1 21036 102.03
Area - 2 Tatopani Gaunpalika 1 15575 525.56 Valid LV-M(a)EAdD:DM⇒AdM
Area - 3 Tila Gaunpalika 1 14539 175.49
Hima Gaunpalika 1 12191 132.32
Sinja Gaunpalika 1 12556 153.29
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 1081 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
66 Kalikot Area - 1 0.5 Area - 1 0.7 Mahawai Gaunpalika 1 8177 322.07 84646 Valid LV-M(a)NAdD:D M⇒DM 1 0.5 2 1.0
Tilagufa Nagarpalika 1 16197 262.56
Palata Gaunpalika 1 17346 318.84
Shuva Kalika Gaunpalika 1 13773 97.32
Pachaljharana Gaunpalika 1 13687 166.92
Area - 2 Raskot Nagarpalika 1 17425 59.73
Sanni Tribeni Gaunpalika 1 13491 136.71
Khandachakra Nagarpalika 1 22274 133.29
Naraharinath Gaunpalika 1 22458 143.86
N/A N/A Institutional - 464 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
67 Mugu Area - 1 0.2 Area - 1 0.3 Chhayanath Rara Na. 1 24527 480.67 36031 Valid AV-M(a)EAdD:DM⇒DM 1 0.2 2 0.4
Mugum Karmarong Ga. 1 6222 2106.91
Area - 2 Khatyad Gaunpalika 1 18832 281.12
Soru Gaunpalika 1 14277 365.80
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 691 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
68 Humla Area - 1 0.2 Area - 1 0.3 Adanchuli Gaunpalika 1 8265 150.61 34372 Valid LV-M(a)EAdD:DM⇒AdM 1 0.2 2 0.4
Tanjakot Gaunpalika 1 6092 159.10
Area - 2 Sarkegad Gaunpalika 1 10688 306.70
Area - 2 Chankheli Gaunpalika 1 6579 1310.41 Valid V-M(a)EAdD:DM⇒AdM
Kharpunath Gaunpalika 1 6736 880.00
Area - 3 Namkha Gaunpalika 1 3589 2419.64
Simkot Gaunpalika 1 11935 785.89
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 1510 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
69 Bajura Area - 1 0.5 Area - 1 0.8 Tribeni Nagarpalika 1 17798 170.32 87861 Valid V-M(i)EAdD:DM⇒AdM 1 0.5 2 1.0
Badimalika Nagarpalika 1 18414 276.00
Jagannath Gaunpalika 1 10158 171.72
Area - 2 Swami Kartik Gaunpalika 1 12576 110.55
Himali Gaunpalika 1 10309 830.33
Area - 2 Budhinanda Nagarpalika 1 20072 232.48 Valid V-M(i)EAdD:DM⇒AdM
Area - 3 Khaptad Chhededaha Ga. 1 19307 135.08
Gaumul Gaunpalika 1 8913 314.66
Budhiganga Nagarpalika 1 20185 59.20
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 791 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
70 Bajhang Area - 1 0.7 Area - 1 1.1 Khaptadchhanna Ga. 1 13419 113.52 126903 Valid LV-M(i)EAdD:AM⇒AdM 1 0.7 2 1.5
Thalara Gaunpalika 1 15958 105.51
Area - 2 JayaPrithivi Nagarpalika 1 21933 166.79
Masta Gaunpalika 1 13265 109.24
Area - 2 Area - 3 Talkot Gaunpalika 1 11719 335.26 Valid AV-M(i)EAdD:A M⇒DM
Saipal Gaunpalika 1 2625 1467.27
Surma Gaunpalika 1 11082 270.80
Area - 4 Kedarseu Gaunpalika 1 21312 113.91
Chabispathivera Gaunpalika 1 14474 116.34
Durgathali Gaunpalika 1 11318 61.83
Area - 3 Area - 5 Bithadchir Gaunpalika 1 17812 86.15 Valid LV-M(a)EAdD:AM⇒AdM
Bungal Nagarpalika 1 33812 447.59
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 356 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
71 Acham Area - 1 1.0 Area - 1 1.4 Mangalsen Nagarpalika 1 26557 220.14 165337 Valid V-M(a)NAdD:AM⇒AdM 2 1.0 4 1.9
Chaurpati Gaunpalika 1 21681 182.16
Dhakari Gaunpalika 1 21998 227.88
Area - 2 Turmakhad Gaunpalika 1 24574 232.07
Kamalbazar Nagarpalika 1 21032 120.78
Area - 2 Panchadewal Binayak Na. 1 26088 147.75 Valid MV-M(a)NAdD:AM⇒AdM
Area - 3 Ramaroshan Gaunpalika 1 23600 173.33
Bannigadi Jayagadh Ga. 1 13519 58.26
Mellekh Gaunpalika 1 22785 134.78
Sanphebagar Nagarpalika 1 25891 166.71
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 1127 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
72 Doti Area - 1 0.7 Area - 1 1.1 Badikedar Gaunpalika 1 14902 332.55 128399 Valid V-M(a)NAdD:AM⇒AdM 1 0.7 2 1.5
K I Singh Gaunpalika 1 20736 127.01
Bogatan Gaunpalika 1 15540 300.22
Area - 2 Dipayal Silgadi Nagarpalika 1 33968 126.62
Purbichauki Gaunpalika 1 21494 117.66
Area - 2 Sayal Gaunpalika 1 20456 122.72 Valid MV-M(i)EAdD:AM⇒AdM
Area - 3 Shikhar Nagarpalika 1 30399 285.37
Adharsha Gaupalika 1 24495 128.47
Jorayal Gaunpalika 1 19788 419.09
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 3053 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
73 Kailali Area-1 3.2 Area-1 (with Ti.N. W.- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) 4.8 Janaki Gaunpalika 1 49860 107.27 551052 Valid MV-M(i)EAdD:AM⇒AdM 5 3.2 10 6.4
Tikapur Nagarpalika 1 89835 118.33
Area-2 (with Ti.N. W.- 6, 7, 8, 9)
Bhajani Nagarpalika 1 53494 176.25
Area-2 Area-3 (with La.N.W. -1, 3, 5, 7, 9) Joshipur Gaunpalika 1 37187 65.57 Valid MV-M(i)EAdD:AM⇒AdM
Lamki-Chuha Nagarpalika 1 90971 225.00
Area-4 (with Mo.G. W.-3, 6, 7; La.N.W. -2, 4, 6, 8, 10)
Bardagoriya Gaunpalika 1 37682 77.26
Area-3 Mohanyal Gaunpalika 1 21082 626.95 Valid AV-M(a)NAdD:AM⇒AdM
Area-5 (with Mo.G.W. - 1, 2, 4, 5;Ga.N.W.-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
Chure Gaunpalika 1 21400 493.18
Gauriganga Nagarpalika 1 64558 244.44
Area-6 (withGa.N.W. - 7, 8, 9, 10, 11).
Area-4 (with Dha. Up.N. W. -7, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19) Ghodaghodi Nagarpalika 1 86034 354.45 Valid AV-M(a)NAdD:AM⇒AdM
Area-7(with Dha. Up.N.W. - 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19) Kailari Gaunpalika 1 49917 233.27
Dhangadhi Upamaha Na.Pa. 1 198792 261.75
Area-5 (with Dha.Upa.W.- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13) Valid AV-M(a)NAdD:AM⇒AdM
Area-8 (withDha.Upa.W.-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 13)
Godawari Nagarpalika 1 98746 308.63
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 5108 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
74 Kanchanpur Area - 1 1.8 Area - 1 2.7 Punarbas Nagarpalika 1 61748 103.71 314385 Valid MV-M(a)NAdD:A M⇒DM 3 1.8 6 3.7
Belaure Nagarpalika 1 53910 123.37
Beldandi Gaunpalika 1 21888 36.70
Area - 2 Laljhandi Gaunpalika 1 25037 154.65
Krishnapur Nagarpalika 1 71500 252.75
Suklaphanta Nagarpalika 1 53969 162.57
Area - 2 Bedkot Nagarpalika 1 57680 159.92 Valid MV-M(i)EAdD:AM⇒AdM
Area - 3 Dodhara Chandani Nagarpalika 1 42974 56.94
Bhimdatta Nagarpalika 1 122320 171.80
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 2731 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
75 Dadeldhura Area - 1 0.5 Area - 1 0.8 Alital Gaunpalika 1 18112 292.87 93403 Valid V-M(a)NAdD:D M⇒DM 1 0.5 2 1.1
Ganayapdhura Gaunpalika 1 13722 135.65
Nawadurga Gaunpalika 1 18672 141.89
Amargadhi Nagarpalika 1 24149 139.33
Area - 2 Ajaymeru Gaunpalika 1 15161 148.90
Bhageshwar Gaunpalika 1 13132 233.38
Parashuram Nagarpalika 1 35590 414.07
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 1064 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
76 Baitadi Area - 1 0.9 Area - 1 1.4 Surnaya Gaunpalika 1 17945 124.52 156372 Valid AV-M(a)NAdD:AM⇒AdM 1 0.9 2 1.8
Purchaudi Nagarpalika 1 38281 198.52
Dilasaini Gaunpalika 1 22966 125.28
Area - 2 Patan Nagarpalika 1 29230 219.26
Sigas Gaunpalika 1 21814 245.44
Area - 2 Melauli Nagarpalika 1 20658 119.43 Valid MV-M(a)NAdD:AM⇒AdM
Area - 3 Shivanath Gaunpalika 1 18064 81.65
Pancheshwar Gaunpalika 1 17796 120.41
Dasharathchanda Nagarpalika 1 31567 135.15
Dogadakedar Gaunpalika 1 23104 126.38
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 732 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
77 Darchula Area - 1 0.5 Area - 1 0.8 Naugad Gaunpalika 1 15528 180.27 92948 Valid AV-M(i)EAdD:DM⇒AdM 1 0.5 2 1.0
Shailyashikhar Nagarpalika 1 21807 117.81
Area − 2 Byas Gaunpalika 1 9668 839.26
Apihimal Gaunpalika 1 6798 613.95
Marma Gaunpalika 1 15124 208.06
Area - 2 Dunhu Gaunpalika 1 9842 65.35 Valid LV-M(i)EAdD:DM⇒AdM
Area - 3 Lekam Gaunpalika 1 13743 83.98
Malikarjun Gaunpalika 1 15635 100.82
Mahakali Nagarpalika 1 24081 135.11
N/A N/A Institutional - N/A 1084 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Grand Total - 165 110 264 165 753 29164578 137032.59 18903689 N/A N/A 165 110 330 220

Note: As per the size, strength, and feasibility of a small country like Nepal, a 1.5 times approach has been proposed for SCA, along with growing voices and feedback from numerous scholars from multiple walks of life in the country for reviewing the number of states and the electoral system and the overall size of the governing structure. However, the concept of 2 times bigger HoR for SCA is ideal and pragmatic for bigger countries. Anyway, coming to the technical note of how, theoretically and numerically, the number of each electoral constituency is constructed, and on what numerical bases, whether remaining decimal points are regarded or not, if regarded, at what scale bases; let us jump directly to it. The operating note is that—At all normal conditions in context on implementation of the 1.5 times concept of SCA, the remaining surplus value of 0.5 is taken as a single SCA. And, if any administrative district has only 1 FCA, the conversion of SCA is automatically become 2 to incorporate the concept of FCA > SCA > LU. Whereas, in the very exceptional case of availability of FCA > 1 and the minimum quotas of LUs are less than the minimum scaling expectation of the additional SCA, the SCA remains 1 SCA less. That means a 0.5 surplus point is not counted as a 1 round additional SCA. And, the minimum required population for 1 PR MP seat = 171851.71, and the minimum required population for 1 PR MLA seat = 114567.81.

In this way, the research has constructed the one-to-one electoral constituencies. It has, while considering—apart from contiguity, geographical features, and population—better connectivity, interdependency, specific cultural ties and administrative features, public convenience, and the areas divided by rivers or hilly ranges or forests or ravines and other such natural barriers, tried its best to put them in the same electoral constituency. In addition, as far as possible and practicable, the prospective delimitation of the constituencies in the district is devised in such a way that they start from “South to North or North to South” in the Terai Region, “West to East or East to West” in the Hilly Region, and “North to South or South to North” in the Himalayan Region, to align with the international border and national security interests. Anyway, the following is the Compile Sheet of the district-wise breakdown of Federal Electoral Constituencies with validity status as per CECD (Table 7).

Table 7.Compile Sheet of District-wise Breakdown of Federal Electoral Constituencies as per CECD.

S. N. Name of District Population Area ( km²) N o C Federal Electoral Constituency for FPTP Election as per Comprehensive Electoral Constituency De limit ation Validity Status
FCA - 1 FCA - 2 FCA - 3 FCA - 4 FCA - 5 FCA - 6 FCA - 7
Total LU wise Ins. Total LU Pop Area Pop Area Pop Area Pop Area Pop Area Pop Area Pop Area
1 Taplejung 120590 119450 1140 3646 3645 2 59408 1007.68 60042 2637.37 Valid
Validity Status Details MV-M(a)EAdD:DM ⇒ AdM AV-M(a)EAdD:DM ⇒ DM
2 Panchthar 172400 171047 1353 1241 1252 1 171047 1252.06 Valid
Validity Status Details MV-M(a)NAdD:DM ⇒ DM
3 Ilam 279534 278128 1406 1703 1707 2 142793 904.56 135335 802.16 Valid
Validity Status Details AV-M(i)NAD:AM ⇒ AdM V-M(i)NAdD:AM ⇒ AdM
4 Jhapa 998054 992796 5258 1606 1620 4 274249 414.89 256996 368.98 204473 409.41 257078 426.64 Valid
Validity Status Details V-M(i)EAdD:AM ⇒ Ad MV-M(i)EAdD:AM ⇒ AdM MV-M(i)EAdD:AM ⇒ AdM MV-M(i)EAdD:AM ⇒ AdM
5 Morang 1148156 1141971 6185 1855 1828 4 293699 561.96 300462 836.72 252386 295.97 295424 133.41 Valid
Validity Status Details AV-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ DM MV-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ DM MV-M(i)EAdD:AM ⇒ AdM LV-M(a)EAdD:AM ⇒ AdM
6 Sunsari 926962 921246 5716 1257 1137 3 338303 307.58 393772 467.78 189171 361.44 Valid
Validity Status Details V-M(i)EAdD:AM ⇒ AdM AV-M(i)EAdD:AM ⇒ DM MV-M(i)EAdD:AM ⇒ AdM
7 Dhankuta 150599 148730 1869 891 901.1 1 148730 901.1 Valid
Validity Status Details AV-M(i)NAdD:AdM ⇒ AdM
8 Terhathum 88 731 88279 452 679 672.4 1 88279 672.4 Valid
Validity Status Details MV-M(i)EAdD:AM ⇒ AdM
9 Sankhuwas- abha 158041 154743 3298 3480 2400 2 72473 514.64 82270 1885.21 Valid
Validity Status Details LV-M(i)EAdD:DM ⇒ AdM AV-M(i)EAdD:DM ⇒ AdM
10 Bhojpur 157923 156611 1312 1507 1527 2 74387 778.6 82224 748.75 Valid
Validity Status Details MV-M(i)EAdD:DM ⇒ AdM MV-M(i)EAdD:DM ⇒ AdM
11 Solukhumb u 104851 102987 1864 3312 3359 2 55041 924.63 47946 2434.76 Valid
Validity Status Details LV-M(a)EAdD:DM ⇒ AdM MV-M(a)EAdD:DM ⇒ AdM
12 Okhaldhung- a 139552 138989 563 1074 1092 1 138989 1091.86 Valid
Validity Status Details AV-M(a)NAdD:DM ⇒ DM
13 Khotang 175298 173920 1378 1591 1593 2 83642 851.1 90278 741.42 Valid
Validity Status Details - MV-M(i)EAdD:DM ⇒ AdM MV-M(i)EAdD:DM ⇒ AdM
14 Udayapur 340721 339189 1532 2063 2300 2 207399 1175.94 131790 1124.39 Valid
Validity Status Details MV-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ DM AV-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ DM
15 Saptari 706255 704359 1896 1363 1213 3 222779 401.47 262059 446.73 219521 364.89 Valid
Validity Status Details MV-M(i)EAdD:AM ⇒ AdM V-M(i)EAdD:AM ⇒ AdM MV-M(i)EAdD:AM ⇒ AdM
16 Siraha 739953 739328 625 1188 1141 3 251516 467.06 235548 333.69 252264 339.82 Valid
Validity Status Details V-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ AdM MV-M(i)EAdD:AM ⇒ AdM MV-M(i)EAdD:AM ⇒ AdM
17 Dhanusa 867747 865032 2715 1180 1208 3 283943 551.26 266665 439.59 314424 216.82 Valid
Validity Status Details AV-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ DM V-M(i)EAdD:AM ⇒ AdM LV-M(a)EAdD:AM ⇒ AdM
18 Mahottari 706994 705912 1082 1002 1001 3 252159 511.84 215644 191.71 238109 297.79 Valid
Validity Status Details AV-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ AdM LV-M(a)EAdD:AM ⇒ AdM MV-M(i)EAdD:AM ⇒ AdM
19 Sarlahi 862470 860251 2219 1259 1255 3 265801 537.34 278797 311.57 315653 405.718 Valid
Validity Status Details AV-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ AdM MV-M(i)EAdD:AM ⇒ AdM V-M(i)EAdD:AM ⇒ AdM
20 Sindhuli 300026 297099 2927 2491 2513 2 139743 1040.84 157356 1472.47 Valid
Validity Status Details AV-M(i)NAdD:AM ⇒ DM MV-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ DM
21 Ramechhap 170302 169035 1267 1546 1568 2 77684 977.35 91351 590.34 Valid
Validity Status Details MV-M(i)EAdD:DM ⇒ AdM LV-M(i)EAdD:DM ⇒ AdM
22 Dolakha 172767 171278 1489 2191 2270 2 84854 1841.41 86424 428.12 Valid
Validity Status Details AV-M(i)EAdD:DM ⇒ AdM LV-M(i)EAdD:DM ⇒ AdM
23 Sindhupalch- ok 262624 260345 2279 2542 1879 2 112755 975.99 147590 903.06 Valid
Validity Status Details V-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ AdM AV-M(i)NAdD:AM ⇒ AdM
24 Kavrepalan- c hok 364039 358722 5317 1396 1395 2 178419 870 180303 525 Valid
Validity Status Details AV-M(i)NAdD:AM ⇒ DM MV-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ AdM
25 Lalitpur 551667 543311 8356 385 396.8 1 543311 396.83 Valid
Validity Status Details MV-M(a)EAdD:DM ⇒ DM
26 Bhaktapur 432132 427060 5072 119 123.8 1 427060 123.79 Valid
Validity Status Details LV-M(a)EAdD:AdM ⇒ AdM
27 Kathmandu 2041587 1994555 47032 395 433.6 7 307440.4 39.69 307440.4 39.69 307440.4 39.69 307440.4 39.69 307440 39.69 3E+05 116.5 178684 118.7 Valid
Validity Status Details LV- M(a)EAdD:DM ⇒ AdM LV- M(a)EAdD:DM ⇒ AdM LV- M(a)EAdD:DM ⇒ AdM LV- M(a)EAdD:DM ⇒ AdM
28 Nuwakot 263391 260648 2743 1121 1080 1 260648 1079.96 Valid
Validity Status Details LV-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ DM
29 Rasuwa 46689 45475 1214 1544 2085 1 45475 2085.04 Valid
Validity Status Details MV-M(a)EAdD:AdM ⇒ AdM
30 Dhading 325710 323704 2006 1926 2036 2 162147 613.45 161557 1422.38 Valid
Validity Status Details V-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ AdM MV-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ DM
31 Makwanpur 466073 458494 7579 2426 2280 3 130843 1196.87 86722 622.3 240929 461.11 Valid
Validity Status Details AV-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ DM LV-M(i)EAdD:AM ⇒ AdM V-M(i)EAdD:AM ⇒ AdM
32 Rautahat 813573 813269 304 1126 1038 3 287564 298.3 269501 198.363 256204 540.97 Valid
Validity Status Details MV-M(i)EAdD:AM ⇒ AdM LV-M(a)EAdD:AM ⇒ AdM AV-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ AdM
33 Bara 763137 761256 1881 1190 1271 3 245190 607.82 285313 272.1 230753 390.92 Valid
Validity Status Details AV-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ DM MV-M(a)EAdD:AM ⇒ AdM MV-M(i)EAdD:AM ⇒ AdM
34 Parsa 654471 651290 3181 1353 966.4 2 382420 232.52 268870 733.9 Valid
Validity Status Details MV-M(a)EAdD:AM ⇒ AdM V-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ DM
35 Chitawan 719859 711277 8582 2218 1334 3 269490 408.72 269490 408.72 172297 516.1 Valid
Validity Status Details V-M(i)EAdD:AM ⇒ AdM V-M(i)EAdD:AM ⇒ AdM MV-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ AdM
36 Gorkha 251027 248287 2740 3610 3646 3 85526 393.11 85526 393.11 77235 2859.64 Valid
Validity Status Details LV-M(i)EAdD:AM ⇒ AdM LV-M(i)EAdD:AM ⇒ AdM V-M(a)EAdD:AM ⇒ DM
37 Lamjung 155852 154330 1522 1692 1662 2 80276 703.87 74054 958.53 Valid
Validity Status Details MV-M(i)EAdD:DM ⇒ AdM MV-M(i)EAdD:DM ⇒ AdM
38 Tanahu 321153 317799 3354 1546 1571 2 162517 662 155282 909 Valid
Validity Status Details V-M(i)NAdD:AM ⇒ AdM AV-M(i)NAdD:AM ⇒ AdM
39 Syangja 253024 252064 960 1164 1037 1 252064 1037.48 Valid
Validity Status Details LV-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ DM
40 Kaski 600051 589534 10517 2017 1700 3 196511.3333 566.65333 196511.3333 566.65333 196511.333 566.6533 Valid
Validity Status Details V-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ AdM V-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ AdM V-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ AdM
41 Manang 5658 4938 720 2246 2321 1 4938 2320.61 Valid
Validity Status Details LV-M(a)EAdD:AdM ⇒ AdM
42 Mustang 14452 11326 3126 3573 3562 1 11326 3562 Valid
Validity Status Details MV-M(a)EAdD:AdM ⇒ AdM
43 Myagdi 107033 104770 2263 2297 2285 2 59134 1011.98 45636 1273 Valid
Validity Status Details MV-M(a)EAdD:DM ⇒ AdM LV-M(a)EAdD:DM ⇒ AdM
44 Parbat 130887 130151 736 494 541.6 1 130151 541.57 Valid
Validity Status Details MV-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ AdM
45 Baglung 249211 247130 2081 1784 1523 2 114414 374.88 132716 1147.84 Valid
Validity Status Details LV-M(i)EAdD:AM ⇒ AdM MV-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ DM
46 Gulmi 246494 245874 620 1149 1111 1 245874 1110.76 Valid
Validity Status Details LV-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ DM
47 Palpa 245027 241951 3076 1373 1462 2 116263 765.5 125688 696.4 Valid
Validity Status Details MV-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ AdM MV-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ AdM
48 E. Nawal- parasi 378079 376192 1887 1370 1310 2 152019 929.24 224173 380.99 Valid
Validity Status Details AV-M(i)NAdD:AM ⇒ AdM MV-M(i)EAdD:AM ⇒ AdM
49 W. Nawal- Parasi 386868 383750 3118 792 747.1 2 189443 413.32 194307 333.73 Valid
Validity Status Details MV-M(i)EAdD:DM ⇒ AdM MV-M(i)EAdD:DM ⇒ AdM
50 Rupandehi 1121957 1112589 9368 1360 1297 4 306404 376.3 315256 322.3 273431 366.59 217498 232.3 Valid
Validity Status Details V-M(i)EAdD:AM ⇒ AdM V-M(i)EAdD:AM ⇒ AdM V-M(i)EAdD:AM ⇒ AdM LV-M(a)EAdD:AM ⇒ AdM
51 Kapilbastu 682961 678685 4276 1738 1651 3 242607 384.69 237866 712.56 198212 553.92 Valid
Validity Status Details MV-M(i)EAdD:AM ⇒ AdM V-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ DM V-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ AdM
52 Arghakhanc hi 177086 176427 659 1193 1239 1 176427 1239.08 Valid
Validity Status Details MV-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ DM
53 Pyuthan 232019 230679 1340 1309 1321 1 230679 1320.93 Valid
Validity Status Details LV-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ DM
54 Rolpa 234793 233343 1450 1879 1885 2 120609 794.89 112734 1090.52 Valid
Validity Status Details V-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ AdM V-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ AdM
55 E. Rukum 56786 56671 115 1161 1161 1 56671 1161.13 Valid
Validity Status Details MV-M(a)EAdD:AdM ⇒ AdM
56 W. Rukum 166740 165460 1280 1716 1213 1 165460 1213.49 Valid
Validity Status Details V-M(a)NAdD:DM ⇒ DM
57 Salyan 238515 237387 1128 1462 1938 2 125428 1177.43 111959 760.09 Valid
Validity Status Details AV-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ DM MV-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ AdM
58 Dang 674993 670352 4641 2955 3060 4 143996 767.22667 143996 767.22667 143996 767.2267 238364 758.13 Valid
Validity Status Details V-M(i)NAdD:AM ⇒ AdM V-M(i)NAdD:AM ⇒ AdM V-M(i)NAdD:AM ⇒ AdM V-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ DM
59 Banke 603194 597299 5895 2337 1882 3 152786 1305.17 210585 149.26 233928 427.84 Valid
Validity Status Details V-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ DM LV-M(a)EAdD:AM ⇒ AdM MV-M(i)EAdD:AM ⇒ AdM
60 Bardiya 459900 457612 2288 [ 2 ] 1105 2 263108 665.57 194504 439.79 Valid
Validity Status Details AV-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ DM MV-M(i)EAdD:AM ⇒ AdM
61 Surkhet 415126 410407 4719 2451 2489 3 119609 821.37 202066 501.26 88732 1166 Valid
Validity Status Details V-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ AdM V-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ AdM V-M(i)EAdD:AM ⇒ AdM
62 Dailekh 252313 251647 666 1502 1486 2 117785 871.52 133862 614.05 Valid
Validity Status Details V-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ AdM MV-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ AdM
63 Jajarkot 189360 188301 1059 2230 2223 2 90545 638.23 97756 1585.12 Valid
Validity Status Details MV-M(i)EAdD:AM ⇒ AdM AV-M(i)EAdD:AM ⇒ AdM
64 Dolpa 42774 42164 610 7889 2461 1 42164 2460.88 Valid
Validity Status Details MV-M(a)EAdD:AdM ⇒ AdM
65 Jumla 118349 117268 1081 2531 2555 2 62407 1568.49 54861 986.66 Valid
Validity Status Details V-M(i)EAdD:DM ⇒ AdM LV-M(a)EAdD:DM ⇒ AdM
66 Kalikot 145292 144828 464 1741 1641 1 144828 1641.3 Valid
Validity Status Details LV-M(a)NAdD:DM ⇒ DM
67 Mugu 64549 63858 691 3535 3235 1 63858 3234.5 Valid
Validity Status Details AV-M(a)EAdD:DM ⇒ DM
68 Humla 55394 53884 1510 5655 6012 2 25045 616.41 28839 5395.94 Valid
Validity Status Details LV-M(a)EAdD:DM ⇒ AdM V-M(a)EAdD:DM ⇒ AdM
69 Bajura 138523 137732 791 2188 2300 2 69255 1558.92 68477 741.42 Valid
Validity Status Details V-M(i)EAdD:DM ⇒ AdM V-M(i)EAdD:DM ⇒ AdM
70 Bajhang 189085 188729 356 3422 3394 3 64575 495.06 72530 2365.41 51624 533.74 Valid
Validity Status Details LV-M(i)EAdD:AM ⇒ AdM AV-M(i)EAdD:AM ⇒ DM LV-M(a)EAdD:AM ⇒ AdM
71 Achham 228852 227725 1127 1680 1664 2 115842 983.03 111883 680.83 Valid
Validity Status Details V-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ AdM MV-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ AdM
72 Doti 204831 201778 3053 [ 2 ] 1960 2 106640 1004.06 95138 955.65 Valid
Validity Status Details V-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ AdM MV-M(i)EAdD:AM ⇒ AdM
73 Kailali 904666 899558 5108 3235 3292 5 193189 401.85 165840 367.83 107040 1364.57 216744.5 579.05 216745 579.1 Valid
Validity Status Details MV-M(i)EAdD:AM ⇒ AdM MV-M(i)EAdD:AM ⇒ AdM AV-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ AdM AV-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ AdM
74 Kanchanpur 513757 511026 2 731 1610 1222 2 288052 833.75 222974 388.66 Valid
Validity Status Details MV-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ DM MV-M(i)EAdD:AM ⇒ AdM
75 Dadeldhura 139602 138538 1064 1538 1506 1 138538 1506.09 Valid
Validity Status Details V-M(a)NAdD:DM ⇒ DM
76 Baitadi 242157 241425 732 1519 1496 2 130236 913.02 111189 583.02 Valid
Validity Status Details AV-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ AdM MV-M(a)NAdD:AM ⇒ AdM
77 Darchula 133310 132226 1084 2322 2345 2 68925 1959.35 63301 385.26 Valid
Validity Status Details AV-M(i)EAdD:DM ⇒ AdM LV-M(i)EAdD:DM ⇒ AdM
Total Federal Constituency Area (FCA) 165

After District-wise breakdown of Federal Electoral Constituencies, let us see how constituency delimitation is reflected and represented cartographically through an example of Rupandehi district. Anyway, the Rupandehi District is one of the southwestern Terai (plain) districts out of the total seventy-seven (77) districts of Nepal that has its district borders to the east, west, and north with the west, east, and south borders of Nawalparasi, Kapilbastu, and Palpa districts, respectively, and the international border to its south with a small part of the northern international border of India. The district is administratively and politically located in Province—5, named Lumbini, and furthermore, the district is divided into 16 Local Units, which include 1 Sub-metropolitan City, 5 Municipalities (including one (1) Cultural Municipality), and 10 Rural Municipalities, as per the delimitation report of the Local Level Restructuring Commission constitutionally provisioned by the Federal Commission as per Article 295 (3) of the Constitution of Nepal 2015 ([42]). These LUs are formed by the integration of various previous local units called VDCs (Village Development Committees). For instance, one of the LUs is Omsatya Gaupalika (Rural Municipality), which is formed with the unification of five previously recognized VDCs, such as Hatty-Farsatikar VDC ([71]), Padasari VDC, Basantpur VDC, Patakhauli VDC, and Chotki-Ramnagar VDC. Similarly, other LUs are also formed with the integration of various remaining VDCs within the district ([74]). The district headquarters is Siddharthanagar. The district covers an area of 1,360 km2 (LUs—1,297.49 km2, and Institutional 62.5 km2) with the diverse geography of the district attributed to a combination of Terai (100 m) and Chure hills region (1,219 m) that provides a basis for diverse agriculture, which ensures about 57% of the cereals produced are available for export, while about half of the vegetables, pulses, and oilseeds consumed are produced within the district. Unmet increasing demands for the commodities are addressed through imports, mostly from India ([16]). 1,121,957 is its population, where 49.1% is the population of males and 50.9% is the female population 4 ([46]), and 672,523 is the voter population.

In this way, considering the status of primary and secondary determinants such as population, geographical area, transportation facilities, geographical features, and the communal and cultural characteristics of the people living the districts, the CECD has delimited the FCAs and SCAs of the district as shown below with validity status (Table 8, Figure 2, Figure 3).

Table 8. Comprehensive electoral constituency delimitation of Rupandehi district.

FCA for HoR SCA for SA Local Units and Institution-Wise Electoral Constituency Delimitation Inclusion: LUs for FPTP and LUs & Institutional Population for PR Election Validity
60:40 - Ratio 1.5 of FCA Status Detail
FPTP PR FPTP PR Name of Local Units (LUs) LUs Pop. Area Voter
Area - 1 3.9 Area - 1 5.9 Omsatiya Gaunpalika 1 41141 48.54 672523 Valid V-M(i)EAdD: AM⇒AdM
Rohini Gaunpalika 1 43327 64.62
Tilottama Nagarpalika 1 149479 126.19
Area - 2 (With Bu. Upa. W.- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 20, 21, 22) Devdaha Nagarpalika 1 72457 136.95
Area - 2 Butwal Upamahanagarpalika 1 194335 101.61 Valid V-M(i)EAdD: AM⇒AdM
Area - 3 (With Bu. Upoa. W. - 14 15 16 17 18)
Sainamaina Nagarpalika 1 78393 162.18
Kanchan Gaunpalika 1 42528 58.51
Area - 3 Area - 4 Sammarimai Gaunpalika 1 43044 50.78 Valid V-M(i)EAdD: AM⇒AdM
Marchawari Gaunpalika 1 40880 48.55
Kotahimai Gaunpalika 1 45975 58.26
Area - 5 Lumbini Sanskritik Na.. 1 87383 112.21
Gaidahawa Gaunpalika 1 56149 96.79
Area - 4 Sudhdhodhan Gaunpalika 1 41907 57.66 Valid LV-M(a)EAdD: AM⇒AdM
Area - 6 Mayadevi Gaunpalika 1 56170 72.44
Siddharthanagar Na. 1 74436 36.03
Siyari Gaunpalika 1 44985 66.17
N/A N/A Institutional N/A 9368 62.51 N/A N/A
4 3.9 6 5.9 1121957 1360 672523

Note: The validity details for the delimited constituency Area - 1 of the Rupandehi district are “V-M(i)EAdD:AM⇒AdM”. Here, “V” stands for “Valid”, “M(i)EAdD” stands for “Minimum Exceptional Addible Deductible”, which means it is valid from the Minimum Exceptional Addible Deductible cluster. “AM⇒AdM” stands for First “Average Method” to Final “Addible Method”. The First “Average Method” is utilized during the numeral determination of the constituency for the district at the beginning procedure of the CECD, and then the “Addible Method” is finally utilized during the spatial, directional, locational, or unit-wise final formation of the constituency delimitation. In this way, the validation details not only indicate the specific validity status but also show how the delimitation comes through utilizing specific methods in its specific track of delimitation. Thus, it is track-driven validation. Anyway, here the validity status % is 70.18%, and it lies between the “Valid” validation cluster’s interval of 82.25% - 60.5%; thus, it is “Valid” from the “Valid Cluster”, which means “nicely valid”.

Source:[16], [46], [42], [74],etc.

Figure 2. Map-overview of federal constituency areas of Rupandehi district.

Figure 3.Map-overview of state constituency areas of Rupandehi district.

After the above FCA compile sheet, let us now see what positive aspects the CECD has brought in the context of the numeric distribution of FCA through the following comparative numeral distributions of constituencies (Table 9).

Table 9.The comprehensive electoral constituency compared to the currently implemented constituency delimitation.

No. of FCA Comprehensive Electoral Constituency Delimitation Currently Implemented Constituency Delimitation
No. of Districts Name of Districts No. of Districts Name of Districts
1 FCA 21 Pachthar, Dhankuta, Terhathum, Okhaldhunga, Lalitpur, Bhaktapur, Nuwakot, Rasuwa, Syangja, Manang, Mustang, Parbat, Gulmi, Arghakhanchi, Pyuthan, E. Rukum, W. Rukum, Dolpa, Kalikot, Mugu, and Dadeldhura. 35 Taplejung, Panthar, Dhankuta, Terathum, Santhuwasabha, Bhojpur, Solukhumbu, Okhaldunga, Khotang, Ramechap, Dolakha, Rasuwa, Lamjung, Manang, Mustang, Myagdi, Parwat, Arghakhanchi, Pyuthan, Rolpa, E. Rukum, W. Rukum, Salyan, Jajarkot, Dolpa, Jumla, Kalikot, Mugu, Humla, Bajura, Bajhang, Doti, Dadeldhura, Baitadi, and Darchula.
2 FCA 34 Taplejung, Ilam, Sankhuwasabha, Bhojpur, Solukhumbu, Khotang, Udayapur, Sindhuli, Ramechhap, Dolkha, Sindhupalchok, Kavrepalanchok, Dhadhing, Parsa, Lamjung, Tanahu, Myagdi, Baglung, Palpa, E. Nawalparasi, W. Nawalparasi, Rolpa, Salyan, Bardiya, Dailekh, Jarjarkot, Jumla, Humla, Bajura, Achham, Doti, Kanchanpur, Baitadi, and Darchula. 21 Ilam, Udayapur, Sindhuli, Sindhupalchok, Kavrepalanchok, Bhaktapur, Nuwakot, Dhading, Makawanpur, Gorkha, Tanahu, Syangja, Baglung, E. Nawalparasi, W. Nawalparasi, Palpa, Gulmi, Bardiya, Surkhet, Dailekh, and Achham.
3 FCA 16 Sunsari, Saptari, Siraha, Dhanusa, Mahottari, Sarlahi, Makawanpur, Rautahat, Bara, Chitwan, Gorkha, Kaski, Kapilbastu, Banke, Surkhet, and Bajhang. 7 Lalitpur, Chitwan, Kaski, Kapilbastu, Dang, Banke, and Kanchanpur.
4 FCA 4 Jhapa, Morang, Rupandehi, and Dang. 9 Sunsari, Saptari, Siraha, Dhanusha, Mahotari, Sarlahi, Rautahat, Bara, and Parsa.
5 FCA 1 Kailali. 3 Jhapa, Rupandehi, and Kailali.
6 FCA N/A N/A 1 Morang.
7 FCA 1 Kathmandu. N/A N/A.
10 FCA N/A N/A 1 Kathmandu

In terms of FCA, the CECD has provided a more justiciable, equal, equitable, and inclusive distribution of federal constituencies, with the introduction of its own dynamic statistics that can ensure and address the availability of all diversities and deviations, ranging from average cases to normal addible and deductible deviations, and even from exceptional to up-to extreme exceptional deviations, with its own Average, Addible, and Deductible Statistics Methods. And with this CECD, the delimitation is addressing the deviation of maximum addible of almost 1200% and maximum deductible of 97.25% on its average value (μ or α ¯ ) to ensure constituency delimitation to be equal, equitable, and inclusive. Of which is impossible through the available weightage system. Even if we talk about the execution of CECD, the above comparative chart has already shown the differences as a result of incorporating its traits of equality, equity, and inclusivity to address all the available diversities and deviations. With CECD and its inclusive features, it has equally and inclusively distributed the FCAs among the districts as per their parameters and determinants on a case-to-case basis. Anyway, the best part of it is that it has allocated only one (1) FCA for only twenty-one (21) districts with all validity status, unlike thirty-five (35) delimited districts (almost half the number of districts) of currently delimited and implemented constituency delimitation. As for the total MPs for Terai districts, it is inclusively 121 MPs (64 from FPTP and 57 from PR) that is 44% of total MPs, whereas it is 49.09% (135 MPs) as per the currently implemented weightage delimitation. In addition, the CECD has inclusively and justifiably allocated 56%, which means 154 MPs (101-FPTP, and 53-PR) for the huge Himalayan and Hilly regions, ensuring inclusive, equal, and equitable representation in the federal parliament and respective governing structure. Anyway, the CECD has delimitated 7 FCAs for 1 district, 5 FCAs for 1 district, 4 FCAs for 4 districts, 3 FCAs for 16 districts, 2 FCAs for 34 districts, and 1 FCA for 21 districts. As far as State Constituency Area, as the governing structure has been criticized for being oversized, and the various economic and political indicators have also been indicating the same as analyzed earlier above, the recommended size of SPA is to be 1.5 of FCA instead of 2, and 2 - 4 states is the recommended number of states. For that, for sure, a constitutional amendment is required, and the research has delimited the SPA as per the same as well. With the 1.5 concept and the concept of FCA > SCA > LU, altogether we have 264 SCAs. And as per the same 1.5 concept, the PR size for MLAs has become 165 as the PR size of MPs is 110. Though, there are also many other potential reformative models as following to make our electoral and governing structure more cost-effective and efficient, of which I had also presented via my previously published article entitled ‘Nepalese Crisis and Possible Interventions in the Context of Its Electoral Delimitation and Governing Structure’ ([76]) too.

1) In spite of the above-presented model of 1.5, there are also other options. One is the Parliamentarian Governing System with a parliamentarily elected PM, FPTP with the assurance of inclusive representation, and the National Assembly structure should be 20% of the HoR, and members should be from various fields of non-political & expertise, 1.3 - 1.15 times bigger than the HoR concept for state structure, and 2 - 4 states for the number of states (165, 33, 190 for the number of members of the HoR, National Assembly, and State Assembly respectively; altogether, a total minimum of 338 members for all assemblies);

2) Directly elected Head of Executive based on FPTP, Proportional Representation Election System for Members of the House of Representatives (provided the PR closed list should be transparent, and the election commission should have full authority to elect the PR candidate), with the automatic conversion of the current FPTP structure to a PR structure. The National Assembly Structure should be 20% of the HoR, and members should be from various fields of non-political and expert backgrounds. There should be a provision for 1.3 - 1.15 times more Members of the State Assembly than the HoR, and the number of states should be reduced to 2 - 4 states (165, 33, and 190 for the number of members of the HoR, National Assembly, and State Assembly, respectively; altogether a total minimum of 338 members for all assemblies);

3) Or reconsidering the state or provincial governing structure for a two-tier government system.

4) The majority of introductory political positions in local government should be based on volunteerism in political representation; and

5) Electoral delimitation should be based on multiple indicators as guided by CECD, etc.

In this way, there are other reformative interventional options besides the 1.5 model. To which should one adhere? Either 1.5 with CECD or other options with CECD. It depends on the government and their choice of interest, even though the 1.5 concept has been utilized throughout this research to present an example of CECD.

5. Conclusion

Based on the above findings, it can be concluded that almost all political, economic, financial, and population migration indicators are showing negative trends, reflecting an increasingly sensitive situation due to electoral delimitation, an oversized mixed electoral system, and a hugely overburdened governing structure fueled by a lack of good governance. In fact, “electoral delimitation” and “electoral system” are directly associated with the “governing structure,” and the other remaining factor, such as “lack of good governance,” is, to a significant extent, a by-product of political instability sourced by this giant “mixed electoral system.” Furthermore, provided the availability of a couple of my prior research publications ([75] & [76]) regarding the aspects of governing structural reform and electoral interventions, this research has entirely focused on electoral delimitation. It has studied the currently implemented electoral constituency delimitation and identified various issues of gerrymandering due to the defective scaling of its only available and utilized statistical tools called the weightage system. Due to not only the flawed scaling but also the rigidity of the weightage system towards addressing the status of all available diversities or deviations, the only available modern electoral delimitation has failed to address the entities of equality, equity, and inclusion at the determinant, distributional, and representational levels. A significant amount of spatial gerrymandering has been noticed in most of the Terai districts—most particularly Sarlahi, Mahottari, Saptari, Morang, Dhanusha, Dang, Banke, Kailali, and Kanchanpur, etc.—along with numerical gerrymandering. Maximum electoral constituencies of almost 49% of total seats from both FPTP and PR electoral systems (135 MPs out of a total of 275 MPs and 269 MLAs out of 550 MLAs) have been provided to Terai alone, disregarding almost 80% of the geography of Nepal—Hilly & Himalaya regions, and their population. Thus, the research has introduced the “Comprehensive Statistics of Balance & Flexibility (CSoBaF)” to form the “Comprehensive Electoral Constituency Delimitation System (CECD System)” guided by the “Comprehensive Principle of Delimitation (CPoD)” in order to address the available diversities and deviations with the spirit of political core values to prevent the existence of any potential gerrymandering. For the validation of the constituency delimitation, the “Validity Status Determination System (VSDS)” has been added with its own statistical formulations that include the categorization of 4 validation clusters with a 2-dimensional validation system: both less than 100% down to 1% and from more than 100% up to 199%, to deal with and validate multi-determinant parameters effectively, efficiently, and inclusively. Anyway, the CECD System with CSoBaF has maximum flexibility to address, inclusively, all the statuses of the potentially available deviations or diversities from 0% - 1200% addible and 0% - 97.25% deductible on its average value (μ or α ¯ ), comprehensively covering all the potential clusters from Minimum Normal Deviation to Maximum Normal, Maximum Normal to Minimum Exceptional Deviation, and from Minimum Exceptional to Extreme Exceptional Deviation with its own Average, Addible, and Deductible Statistics Methods. After the establishment of CSoBaF, the research has delimited the overall constituencies of Nepal. It has equally and inclusively distributed the FCAs among the districts as per their parameters and determinants on a case-to-case basis. Anyway, the best part of it is that it has allocated only one (1) FCA for only twenty-one (21) districts with all validity statuses, unlike the thirty-five (35) delimited districts (almost half the number of districts) of the currently delimited and implemented constituency delimitation. In addition, the current status of the spatial gerrymandering mostly seen in the Terai region has been justifiably addressed, and the numerical gerrymandering has been settled with the CECD and an inclusive figure of 44% and its equivalent 121 MPs (64 from FPTP and 57 from PR) has been determined against the currently implemented 49.09% (135 MPs).

Anyway, the main feature of this research is to highlight the drawbacks or negative aspects of the only and currently trending “Weightage System Approach’ of electoral constituency delimitation, and to develop, introduce, and advocate for the new and more innovative “CECD (Comprehensive Electoral Constituency Delimitation)” guided by “CoPD (Comprehensive Principle of Delimitation)” and its respective rational and pragmatic delimitation of FCA and SCA. However, below are some of the remarkably conclusive features and capabilities of CECD that claim it is the only best delimitation model to address all the drawbacks of the current Weightage System Delimitation.

1. Creation of a more effective and innovative model of Electoral Delimitation called CECD, guided by CPoD (Comprehensive Principle of Delimitation), with its own Theoretical Model Sheet.

2. The innovation of the New Statistics Operational Mechanism, Tools, and Model named “Comprehensive Statistics of Balance and Flexibility for Inclusivity, Equality, and Equitability” has been introduced with its Absolute Non-Discriminatory Statistics Operating Mechanism and its own Validity Status Determination System (VSDS).

3. Measurability: The most remarkable part of Comprehensive Statistics is its measurability. It statistically makes equity, equality and inclusion as the measurable criteria that, for sure, further helps on assessing gerrymandering or malapportionment of constituency delimitation.

4. Absolute Non-Discriminatory Operating Mechanism: If the status of the first determinant is at the stage of increased or additionally deviated form from its average value (μ or α ¯ ), then automatically a certain equal, inclusive, or equitable percentage of the second determinant decreases or is deducted from its respective average value; and, similarly, if a certain value of the first determinant is found to be deductively deviated from the average value (μ or α ¯ ), then a certain equal, inclusive, or equitable percentage of another determinant automatically increases or is added to its respective average value. This is generally how the comprehensive delimitation operates through AODS (Automatic Objective Determination System), and thus, there is no question or possibility of raising discriminatory electoral constituency delimitation.

5. Highest delimitation flexibility to address maximum addible deviation up to 1200% and maximum deductible deviation up to 97.25%.

6. Inclusive VSDS to ensure the equal and equitable representation of all available deviations or diversities from average to normal deviations or diversities, normal to exceptional deviations or diversities, and exceptional to extreme exceptional deviations or diversities. The Validity Statuses are categorically structuralized as Absolute Valid, Valid, Medium Valid, and Lower Valid. The parameters of validity from “100% - 82.25% or 100% - 117.25%” are valued as an “Absolute Valid Status”, from “82.25% - 60.5% or 117.25% - 139.5%” are evaluated as a “Valid Status”, from “60.5% - 33.25% or 139.5% - 166.75%” are calculated as a “Medium Valid Status”, and from “33.25% - 1% or 166.75% - 199%” are assessed as “Lower Valid”, respectively.

7. A universally and locally applicable systematic procedure for more pragmatic, inclusive, and rational delimitation.

8. Neither Urban-Centric nor Rural, but actual parameter of determinants-oriented or ALL-oriented delimitation.

9. Cost-effective, rational, pragmatic, and more inclusive SCA that is derived by the “1.5 Greater Concept” than FCA.

10. Further conclusive feedback throughout the research regarding the governing structure, along with various potential reformative interventions.

11. District-wise Actual Breakdown Compile Sheet of FCA with Validity Status.

12. Assurance of “LUA ‹ SCA ‹ FCA Concept” unlike the recently implemented delimitation of FCA and SCA delimited by the Constituent Delimitation Commission. In the context of the availability of the Local Unit as a basic unit, the area of FCA should be larger than the SCA and LU, and the area of SCA should be larger than the LU; otherwise, what is and will be the difference between FCA & SCA, and SCA and LU, or MP, MLA, and LU Member? However, as per the previous delimitation, especially the delimitation of CAE (Constitution Assembly Election) and the recent delimitation for FCA and SCA, in some districts like Kathmandu, Kaski, Lalitpur, Chitwan, Dang, etc., the State and FCA seemed to be smaller than their LUs. However, with this CECD, these kinds of discrepancies will never occur due to its comprehensive and sustainable delimitation.

13. Can address all the weaknesses and loopholes of the traditionally derogative “Weightage System Approach”.

14. Only one (1) Federal Constituency Area for only twenty-one (21) districts with Validity Status, unlike thirty-five (35) delimited districts (almost half the number of districts) currently (1 week of Sep., 2017) delimited by the Delimitation Commission of Nepal.

15. The Extensive Delimitation of Rupandehi District as a Reference or Sample Study for Detailed Delimitation.

Thus, the Absolute Non-discriminatory Operational Mechanism; own new statistics tools with a new validation system; universally & locally applicable constituency delimitation; neither urban nor rural but all-oriented inclusive electoral constituency delimitation; assurance of “LUAs < SCA < FCA” Concept; cost-effective, rational & pragmatic and more inclusive constituencies; appropriate to address all the weaknesses and loopholes of the only available modern weightage system-led constituency delimitation; etc., are major conclusive features of the “Comprehensive Electoral Constituency Delimitation System (CECD System)”. And, the “Comprehensive Statistics of Balance & Flexibility (CSoBaF)”, “Comprehensive Principle of Delimitation (CPoD)”, “Comprehensive Electoral Constituency Delimitation System (CECD System)”, and “Validity Status Determination System (VSDS)” have been established as the innovations and important achievements of this research.

Acknowledgements

My special thanks go to Dr. Shusil Dhital (Monash University, Australia), Dr. Ujjwal KC (University of Melbourne, Australia), Dr. DB Subedi (University of Queensland, Australia), Dr. Keshav Raj Panthee (Koteshwor Multiple Campus, Kathmandu, Nepal), Mr. Surya Kumar Khadka, and Mr. Dhirendra Chand Sodari for their valuable suggestions while preparing this article.

Appendices Appendix A

Regional-Wise Constituencies Breakdown and Gerrymandering.

Figure A1. Delimitation of constituencies in Sarlahi district.

Source:[18].

Figure A2. Region-wise total constituencies for MPs & MLAs.

 Appendix B

Breakdown of Total Political Posts in the Governing Structure of Nepal.

Table B. Total political posts in the government’s various structures of Nepal.

Total Political Posts in the Government’s Various Structures of Nepal
S.N. Political Posts Number Reference
1 President 1 Constitution of Nepal 2015 (Article 61 and Article 67)
2 Vice-President 1
3 Prime Minister 1 Constitution of Nepal 2015 (Article 76.1 and Article 76.9)
4 Federal Ministers 25
5 National Assembly Chairperson 1 Constitution of Nepal 2015 (Article 92.1, Article 86.1, and Article 86.2)
6 National Assembly Deputy Chairperson 1
7 National Assembly Members 59
8 House Speaker 1 Constitution of Nepal 2015 (Article 91.1 and Article 84.1)
9 House Deputy Speaker 1
10 FPTP Federal Assembly Member 165
11 PR Federal Assembly Member 110
12 State Assembly Speaker 7 Constitution of Nepal 2015 (Article 182.1)
13 State Assembly Deputy Speaker 7
14 State Head 7 Constitution of Nepal 2015 (Article 163.1, Article 168.1, Article 168.9)
15 Chief Minister 7
16 FPTP State Assembly Member 330 Constitution of Nepal 2015 (Article 176.1.a)
17 PR State Assembly 220 Constitution of Nepal 2015 (Article 176.1.b)
18 State Minister 154 Constitution of Nepal 2015 (Article 168.9)
19 District Coordination Committee Chairperson 77 Constitution of Nepal 2015 (Article 56.4), Federal Law, Local Government Operation Act 2017
20 District Coordination Committee Deputy Chairperson 77
21 District Coordination Committee Member 539
22 Mayer Metropolitan 6 Constitution of Nepal 2015 (Article 219), Local Government Operation Act 2017
23 Deputy Mayer Metropolitan 6
24 Mayer Sub-Metropolitan 11
25 Deputy Mayor Sub-Metropolitan 11
26 Municipalities Council Mayer 276
27 Municipalities Council Sub-Mayer 276
28 Rural Council Chairperson 460
29 Rural Council Deputy-Chairperson 460
30 Ward President 6743
31 Ward Member and Executive Council Member 26972
Total Political Posts 37012 NA
Appendix C

Yearly Budget Breakdown of Nepal.

Table C. Public expenditure ratio over Budget & GDP, and respective economic status.

Public Expenditure Ratio over Budget & GDP, and Respective Economic Status
Public Expenditure Ratio Based on Budget & Respective Economic Status Pub. Expenditure Ratio based on GDP & respective economic status Remarks
Year Budget (in Billion NRs.) Public Expenditure Breakdown Based on the Budget Expenditure Ratio Status
Capital Expenditure (in Billions) Recurrent (Other) Expenditure (in Billion) Ideal Expenditure Ratio for epal Actual Ratio of Capital and Recurrent (Other) Expenditure STATUS Nominal (Current) GDP in Billions (NRs.) Public Exp. Ratio compared to GDP STATUS
Recurrent Expenditure (in Billions) Finance Mgmt. (in Billion) Transfer to Province and Local Government (in Billion) Net Recurrent (Other) Expenditure (in Billion) Ideal Expenditure Ratio compared to GDP (Ideal Ratio of 75:25 for Capital and Recurrent (other) Expenditure as per RAHN’s Critical/ Counter- productive Border Line) Actual Expenditure Load (%) on GDP Counterproductive % of Public Expenditure by below % of GDP amount over Economic Growth
2018 1279 335.17 803.5 140.3 0 943.79 75.0:25 26.2:73.75 ↓ 3715.27 <25% 34.4% 9.4% ↓ N/A
2019 1315 313.99 845.45 155.7 0 1001.17 75.0:25 23.87:76.75 ↓ 3911.68 <25% 33.6% 8.6% ↓ N/A
2020 1533 408.59 957.1 167.5 0 1124.6 75.0:25 26.64:73.75 ↓ 3931.37 <25% 39.0% 14.0% ↓ N/A
2021 1472 352 948 172 0 1120 75.0:25 23.91:76.75 ↓ 4393.11 <25% 33.5% 8.5% ↓ N/A
2022 1648 374.26 678.62 208 386.7 1273.31 75.0:25 22.71:77.75 ↓ 5441.11 <25% 30.3% 5.3% ↓ N/A
2023 1794 380.38 753.4 230.2 429.8 1413.45 75.0:25 21.20:78.75 ↓ 5445.53 <25% 32.9% 7.9% ↓ N/A
2024 1751 302.08 1141.78 307.5 0 1449.23 75.0:25. 17.75:82.75 ↓ 5743.99 <25% 30.5% 5.5% ↓ N/A
2025 1860 352.35 1140.66 367.3 0 1507.94 75.0:25 18.94:81.06 ↓ 6107.00 <25% 30.5% 5.5% ↓ N/A
2026 1964.1 407.89 1181 375.24 0 1556.24 75.0:25 20.75:79.25 ↓ 6609 <25% 29.7% 4.7% ↓ N/A
2027 2124.34 431.10 1270.58 422.64 0 1693.22 75.0:26 20.29:79.71 ↓ 7148 <25% 29.7% 4.7% Projected

Note: The above public expenditure data are based on budget figures. Also, the GDP figure is based on a single specific year, not on mixed fiscal years (i.e., 2023/24 and so on), and equally, the specific exchange rate and date vary; thus, the figure may appear slightly different from that of a specific fiscal year. The GDP here is Nominal (Current) GDP.

Source:National Budget of Nepal, [15],NBSM, [87][forGDP], [62][44][GDP for the year2024/25], [2][for projected GDP of the year2025/26], [61], [81],and[29].

 Appendix D

Rahn’s Optimum Expenditure Size of Government and Scully’s Growth Maximization Optimum Tax Rate of Nepal.

Figure D1. Rahn curve of optimum expenditure size of government.

Source: [61].

Figure D2. GW Scully’s growth-maximizing optimum tax rate.

Source: [56]and[67].

 Appendix E

Comparative Tax-load Per Person & Tax-load in Terms of GDP.

Table E1. Tax-load in terms of GDP.

Tax load in Terms of GDP
Year Actual Tax Collection in trillion NRs. Nominal (Current) GDP in trillions (NRs.) Growth Rate Ratio of Tax in proportion to GDP Growth- Maximizing Optimum Tax Rate Counter Productive Status Status Remarks
2015/16 0.48 2.46 3.98% 16.80% 12.30% (−) 4.5% ↓ N/A
2023/24 1.059 5.743 3.67% 18.25% 12.30% (−) 5.95% ↓ N/A
2024/25 1.179 6.1072 4.61% 19.30% 12.30% (−) 7% ↓ N/A
2025/26 1.281 6.609 3.85% 19.38% 12.30% (−) 7.08% ↓ N/A
2026/27 1.40531 7.148 4.60% 19.66% 12.30% (−)7.36% ↓ Projected

Note: Data regarding 2026/27 are based on government projection. The growth maximizing optimum tax rate of 12.30% is determined as per Scully, G.W.’s principle of growth maximizing optimum tax rate by Keshav Raj via his journal paper published in 2019, based on economic data from 1993-2015. Here, the GDP is Nominal (Current) GDP.

Source: [32], [30], [69], [49][for projected tax collection or revenue for the year2025/26], [87][for GDP], [44][GDP for the year2024/25], [2][for projected GDP of the year2025/26], [56][for determination of growth-maximizing optimum tax rate as per Scully model], [67], [5],and[81].

Table E2. Comparative average individual tax-load per person on its own Nepalese average tax burden context.

Comparative Average Individual Tax-load Per Person in Its Own Nepalese Average Tax Burden Context
Years Total Tax Collection in Billion NRs. Population Average Individual Tax Load in NRs. Average Individual Tax-load Differences based on the year 1999/2000 Yearly Individual Tax-Load Differences Remarks
% Compared to the year 1999 / 2000 Times Difference Status Percentage (%) Times Difference Status
1999/2000 7.9275 24546509 322 100% 1 N/A ↑ N/A N/A N/A ↑ N/A
2023/24 1058.9 29651054 35712 11091% 110 10991% N/A N/A N/A N/A
2024/25 1178 29618118 39722 12336% 123.36 12236% 111.22% 1.11 11.2% N/A
2025/26 1281 29629410 43234 13427% 134 13327% 108.8% 1.088 8.8% N/A
2026/27 1405.31 29629410 47429 14730% 147 14630% 109.7% 1.097 9.7% Projected

Note: The average individual tax-load of 2023/24 was 110 times and almost 11,091% of the average tax-burden of the year 1999/2000 and also can be projected to increase up to 147 times or almost 14,730% of the years 1999/2000 in the year 2026/27.

Source:Annual Progress Report of MoF—the[45], [32], [30], [69], [86], [49],[5],and[81].

Table E3. Comparative average individual tax burden per person of Nepal & India.

Comparative Average Individual Tax Burden Per Person of Nepal & India
Years Based on Actual Tax Collection Remarks
Tax or Revenue Collection (in Billion) Tax burden per person in Nepal (in NRs.) Average Tax Burden Per Person in India (In NRs.) Year Basis Difference of Nepalese Per Person Average Tax Load Compared to Indian Average Individual Tax Burden Status
2017/18 726.716 25880 22338 15.9% ↑ Nepal probably has a heavier tax load upon individuals because of its trade-based economy.
2018/19 826.764 29097 23965 21.40% ↑
2023/24 1058.9 35712 23741 50% ↑
2024/25 1178 39722 27379 45% ↑
2025/26 1281 43234 28930 49.5% ↑
2026/27 1405.31 47429 39566 19.9% ↑ Projected

Note: The Indian tax load, based on its corresponding services, with the government of India providing, is still heavier. There is no doubt about the Nepalese much heavier tax load because of its trade-based economy (the maximum proportion of the tax generally comes from individual taxpayers) as opposed to the Indian production-based economy (the maximum proportion of the tax in India comes from production). Thus, Nepal has a much heavier tax load than the figure it reflects.

Source:Annual Progress Report of[45], [32], [30], [69], [86], [49],[22], [7], [28], [5],and[24].

 Appendix F

National Debt Over GDP & Population, and Trade Deficit.

Table F1. National debt over GDP.

National Debt Over GDP
Year Debt (in Billion) Nominal (Current) GDP (in Billion NRs.) Ideal Optimum Debt Threshold % of Public Debt as Proportionate to GDP Actual % of Deficit as Proportionate to GDP Differences/ Threat by GDP Amount Status Remarks
2018 1155.08 3715.27 35.44% 31.09% −4.35% → Note : NRs. 657.29 billion is supposed to be added to the projected debt as per the budget 2026/27.
2019 1331.04 3911.68 35.44% 34.02% −1.42% ↑
2020 1702.73 3931.37 35.44% 43.31% 7.87% ↑
2021 1901.46 4393.11 35.44% 43.28% 7.84% ↑
2022 2325.22 5411.11 35.44% 42.97% 7.53% ↑
2023 2565.96 5445.53 35.44% 47.12% 11.68% ↑
2024 2611 5743.99 35.44% 45.50% 10.06% ↑
2025 2622 6107.00 35.44% 43% 7.56% ↑
2026 2974 6609 35.44% 44.99% 9.55% ↑
2027 3631.28 7148 35.44% 50.80% 15.36% ↑ Projected

Note: The above Public Debt and GDP figures are based on a single specific year, not on mixed fiscal years (i.e., 2023/24 and so on), and equally, the exchange rate on a specific date varies; thus, the figures may seem slightly different from those of a specific fiscal year. Anyway, the GDP here is Nominal (Current) GDP.

Source: [44][GDP for the year2024/25], [2][for projected GDP of the year2025/26], [13][for the debt up to2023], [64][for the debt of2024], [66][for the debt of2025], [87][for GDP],the projection of the Nepalese national debt trend for the year2025/26is analysed based on the national budget figure of2025/26,as can be seen in[49], [60][for the growth-maximising ideal threshold(35.44%)of public debt proportionate to GDP], [81], [63],and[29].

Table F2. Public debt burden over population.

Public Debt Burden Over Population
Years Debt (in Billion NRs.) Debt Burden per Person or Debt Per Capita (in NRs.) Status Remarks
2000 247.6056 10068 ↑ Note : NRs. 657.29 billion is supposed to be added over the projected debt as per the budget 2026/2027. Thus, the prospective national debt will reach NRs. 3631.28 billion.
2005 306.8 11656 ↑
2010 463.9572 17092 ↑
2015 667.66736 24180 ↑
2020 1702.73 57977 ↑
2021 1901.46 63302.7 ↑
2022 2325.22 76107 ↑
2023 2565.96 83060.7 ↑
2024 2611 92194.27 ↑
2025 2622 88527 ↑
2026 2974 100373 ↑
2027 3631.28 122556 Projected

Note: Public Debt in the year 2026 is 12.01 times (1201.1% of public debt of the year 2000) higher compared to the Public Debt of 2000, and the Debt Burden per person is 9.9695 times higher (996.95% of debt burden per person of the year 2000) compared to the debt burden of the year 2000. Similarly, for the current year 2026/27, public debt is predicted to raise by 14.66 times (1466.5% of the public debt of the year 2000) higher compared to the public debt of 2000, and the debt burden per person is going to be 12.17 times higher (1217% of the public debt burden per person of the year 2000) compared to the debt burden of the year 2000. The prediction is made as per the source mentioned in the budget 2026/27.

Source: [13](for the debt up to2023), [64][for the debt of2024], [86], [66][for the debt of2025], [63], [81],and the projection of the Nepalese national debt trend for the year2025/26,analyzed based on the national budget figure of2025/26,can be seen in[49].

Table F3. Trade deficit in terms of GDP.

Trade Deficit in Terms of GDP
Year Trade Deficit (in Billion NRs.) Percentage of Trade Deficit as a Proportion of GDP (Nominal) Status
2005 (+) 1.675 0.24 ↑
2021/22 (−) 1720 (−) 33% ↓
2022/23 (−) 1450 (−) 27% ↓
2023/24 (−) 1440 (−) 24.6% ↓
2024/25 (−) 1527 (−) 25% ↓
2025/26 (−) 1780 (−) 27% ↓
2026/27 (−) 1780+ (−) 27+% ↓

Note: We had a trade surplus of 1.6 billion in the year 2005, whereas by the year 2025/26 it had dropped to a higher level of trade deficit of 1780 billion, almost 1062.68 times higher. We can still predict further deficits in the year 2026/2027.

Source: [44][GDP for the year2024/25], [2][for projected GDP of the year2025/26], [86][for Population], [87][for GDP], [79], [70], [36], [78], [65],and[50]

 References ACE (2012). Equal Population on Redistricting: Deviation from Population Quotas. https://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/bd/onePage 2012 ADB (2025). Nepal’s Economy to Strengthen in FY2025 and Further in2026. ADB. https://www.adb.org/news/nepal-economy-strengthen-fy2025-and-further-2026?fbclid=IwY2xjawOspihleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFvSnNpTkNUbzBrRHd1VXZiAR6O8XozQv9kMsOVrcNEAhb9l7BMEmYMghaYyMjN8ZL4lcuabGsxHy0t2Ht8w_aem_tOPLlSD-zIFGCZawkFfS6Q 2025 Adhikari, U., Aryal, A., Koirala, B., Neupane, C., Neupane, S.R., & Thapa, D. (2016). Labour Market Survey Analysis of Emerging Needs of Technical Human Resources in the Country. Accountability Initiative Private Limited. https://www.academia.edu/126257125/Labour_Market_Survey_Analysis_of_Emerging_needs_of_Technical_Human_Resources_in_the_Country Adhikari, U. Aryal, A. Koirala, B. Neupane, C. Neupane, S.R. Thapa, D. 2016 Ansu Invest (2025). ‘Nepal’s Real Estate Market Cool as Transactions and Revenue Collection Fall6 %. https://ansuinvest.com/news/view/878?fbclid=IwY2xjawQLtOpleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETI5WVNBM3FHeUl2ZmFBaDcxc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHgWCFbQkVAg2oEdCHcWyXCT3pjF9NZrtx6H2mePnsKgWUBWpWCuh6UNTcPlr_aem_B_rkHMo34-ZGNYpbdABNcA 2025 Banking News (2026). Nepal’s FY2025 /26 Budget Spending Reaches80 %, Revenue Collection at83 % of Target. https://bankingnews.com.np/2026/07/4620/?fbclid=IwY2xjawTcAodleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETE3ZjNBbmpKUTdDdlkwVld6c3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHoBBOp1xAm5q97OSoGzpE_oXYm4r-yONU8kYFq5fnjjhkD1SSmVYQ-ujlIIO_aem_UEQDqlxWIngu_yFrIyo-Yw 2026 Borenstein, S., & Delgado, A. L. (2026, September 24). Nepal's leader, at UN, says recent floods serve as a 'warning to the world' about climate change. Fox 4 KC. https://fox4kc.com/news/international/ap-nepals-leader-at-un-says-recent-floods-serve-as-a-warning-to-the-world-about-climate-change/ Borenstein, S. Delgado, A. 2026 Chokhawala, M. (2025). Total Income Tax Collection in India2024 -25. Cleartax. https://cleartax.in/s/income-tax-collections-in-india-2024 Chokhawala, M. 2025 Constituency Delimitation Commission of Nepal (2007). Constituent Delimitation Commission Report2007. 2007 Constituency Delimitation Commission of Nepal (1990). Constituency Delimitation Commission Report1990. 1990 Constituency Delimitation Commission of Nepal (2017). Constituency Delimitation Commission Report2017. 2017 Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal (1990). https://www.refworld.org/legal/legislation/natlegbod/1990/en/19018 1990 Constitution of Nepal 2015 (2015). https://ag.gov.np/files/Constitution-of-Nepal_2072_Eng_www.moljpa.gov_.npDate-72_11_16.pdf 2015 2015 2015 Countryeconomy (2024). Nepal National Debt. Countryeconomy. https://countryeconomy.com/national-debt/nepal 2024 Dampegama, K. R., Halanayake, N. T., Ranawaka, Plnr. C. P., & Thavalingam, K. (2019). Delimitation of Administrative Boundaries, History, Importance and Using Geographic Information System for Improved Delimitation of Administrative Boundaries. In Proceedings of 12thInternational Research Conference 2019. http://192.248.104.6/bitstream/handle/345/2331/bes014.pdf?sequence=3 Dampegama, K. Halanayake, N. Ranawaka, P Thavalingam, K. Boundaries, H 2019 Dhungel, N. (2018). Nepal Budget for Fiscal Year 2018/19. Nepal Economic Forum. https://nepaleconomicforum.org/nepal-budget-for-fiscal-year-2018-19/#:~:text=Finance%20Minister%20Yubaraj%20Khatiwada%20presented,%2F19%20beginning%20mid-July Dhungel, N. 2018 District Agriculture Office—Rupandehi (2012). Rupandehi District Profile. Government of Nepal. https://www.namis.gov.np/.../Rupandehi%20District%20Profile_SKM_1433381794.pdf 2012 Election Commission of Nepal (2026). House of Representatives Election 2082: Election Result Book. https://election.gov.np/admin/public//storage/Election_Result_Book_2079/HoR_2082_Final.pdf 2026 Electoral Constituency Delimitation Commission (2017). Constituency Delimitation Map of Sarlahi District. https://election.gov.np/ecn/uploads/userfiles/maps/SARLAHI.pdf 2017 Financial Action Task Force (2023). https://www.fatf-gafi.org/content/dam/fatf-gafi/fsrb-mer/Nepal-APG-MER-2023.pdf.coredownload.inline.pdf 2023 Ghimire, B. (2023). Nepali Congress Leaders’ Call for Review of Proportional Election System Creates Buzz. The Kathmandu Post National Daily. https://kathmandupost.com/politics/2023/07/30/nepali-congress-leaders-call-for-review-of-proportional-election-system-creates-buzz Government of India (2016). Expenditure Budget Vol. I, 2016/17. https://www.indiabudget.gov.in/budget2016-2017/ub2016-17/eb/stat02.pdf Ghimire, B. 2023 Government of India (2017). Press Information Bureau. https://pib.gov.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=160460#:~:text=16.97%20lakh%20crore%20compared%20to,18%25%20compared%20to%20last%20year 2017 Government of India (2022). ReportNo 5 of 2022. https://cag.gov.in/uploads/download_audit_report/2022/3-%20Chapter-1-062f0e3be7c82f0.00161787.pdf 2022 Government of Nepal (2018). Consolidated Financial Statements Fiscal Year 2016/2017. Government of Nepal. https://old.fcgo.gov.np/storage/uploads/reportpublication/2018-06-08/CFS_final_book_2016-17.pdf 2018 GovtBudget (2025). India Tax Revenue Analysis2025 -26. https://govtbudget.com/budget-analysis/tax-revenue-2025-26 2025 Gyawali, H. (2022). प्रदेशसरकारकोऔिचत्यमाप्रश्न (Question against the Rationale of State Government). Online Khabar. https://www.onlinekhabar.com/2022/03/1090664 Gyawali, H. 2022 Handley, L. (2007). Challenging the Norms and Standards of Election Administration: Boundary Delimitation. International Foundation for Electoral Systems. https://www.ifes.org/sites/default/files/migrate/4_ifes_challenging_election_norms_and_standards_wp_bndel.pdf Handley, L. 2007 House of Representative (2024). Special Investigation Report on Misuse of Savings Funds of Cooperatives Societies, 2081.House of Representative. https://na.parliament.gov.np/en/publication/1726814758 2024 Institute of Chartered Accountants of Nepal (2026). Highlight of Federal Budget of Nepal Fiscal Year 2083/84 (2026/27). https://en.ican.org.np/_browsable/file/resouces/Federal_Budget_2083_84_Highlights_V1.pdf 2026 International Monetary Fund (2026). Nepal:2026 Article IV Consultations and Seventh Review under the Extended Credit Facility Arrangement: Press Release; Staff Report; Staff Supplement; and Statement by the Executive Director for Nepal. International Monetary Fund. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/002/2026/127/002.2026.issue-127-en.xml?cid=576691-com-dsp-crossref 2026 2026 IV Investopaper (2024). Data: Government Revenue Collection in Nepal. https://www.investopaper.com/news/data-government-revenue-collection-in-nepal/ 2024 Joshi, R. P. (2025). Six Months since FATF Grey List: Inching towards the Blacklist. The Himalayan Times. https://thehimalayantimes.com/nepal/six-months-since-fatf-grey-list-inching-towards-the-blacklist Joshi, R. 2025 Kharel, K. R. (2021). Tax Revenue of Nepal: Assessing the Impact on GDP. Interdisciplinary Journal of Management and Social Sciences, 2,80-89. https://doi.org/10.3126/ijmss.v2i1.36745 10.3126/ijmss.v2i1.36745https://doi.org/10.3126/ijmss.v2i1.36745 Kharel, K. 2021 10.3126/ijmss.v2i1.36745 Khatapana (2024). Nepal’s Rs. 2.52 Trillion Debt Crisis: The Government Is Borrowing to Pay Bills, Not to Fund Growth. Linkedin. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nepals-rs-252-trillion-debt-crisis-government-borrowing-pay-t3vpf Bills, N 2024 Macrotrends I (2023). Nepal GDP Growth Rate 1961-2025. Macrotrends. https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/NPL/nepal/gdp-growth-rate 2023 Macrotrends II (2023). Nepal Inflation Rate 1965-2025. Macrotrends. https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/NPL/nepal/inflation-rate-cpi 2023 Macrotrends III (2023). Nepal Trade Balance 1965-2025. Macrotrends. https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/npl/nepal/trade-balance-deficit 2023 Magar, A. T. (2023). 217 Industries Closed in Rupandehi. Nepal News. https://english.nepalnews.com/s/nation/217-industries-closed-in-rupandehi Magar, A. 2023 Mallik, S. K., & Pokharel, S. (2024). An Analysis of Electoral System in Nepal. European Journal of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences, 1,28-41. https://doi.org/10.59324/ejahss.2024.1(6).04 10.59324/ejahss.2024.1(6).04https://doi.org/10.59324/ejahss.2024.1(6).04 Mallik, S. Pokharel, S. Arts, H 2024 1 6 10.59324/ejahss.2024.1(6).04 Mason, E. (2000). Forced Migration Studies: Surveying the Reference Landscape. Libri, 50,241-251. https://doi.org/10.1515/LIBR.2000.241 10.1515/LIBR.2000.241https://doi.org/10.1515/LIBR.2000.241 Mason, E. 2000 10.1515/LIBR.2000.241 Menon, A. K., & Deka, K. (2025). Why the South Is Resisting the Delimitation Exercise. India Today. https://www.indiatoday.in/india-today-insight/story/why-the-south-is-resisting-the-delimitation-exercise-2694305-2025-03-16 Menon, A. Deka, K. 2025 Migration Data Portal (2024). Forced Migration or Displacement. https://www.migrationdataportal.org/themes/forced-migration-or-displacement#:~:text=Displacement%2C%20according%20to%20IOM%20is,rights%20or%20natural%20or%20human- 2024 Ministry of Federal Affairs & Local Development of Nepal (2017). Rajpatra—NagarpalikaList. Government of Nepal. http://lgcdp.gov.np/nepal-new-structure-gaupalika-nagarpalika-list 2017 Ministry of Finance—Government of India (2024). Revenue Collection during the Current Year. Ministry of Finance—Government of India. https://dor.gov.in/revenue-collection-during-current-year#:~:text=Breadcrumb,Footer Breadcrumb, F 2024 Ministry of Finance—Government of Nepal (2025). GDP (Current).Ministry of Finance—Government of Nepal. https://data.mof.gov.np/Default.aspx?fbclid=IwY2xjawMY7k5leHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFvSnNpTkNUbzBrRHd1VXZiAR6O8XozQv9kMsOVrcNEAhb9l7BMEmYM-ghaYyMjN8ZL4lcuabGsxHy0t2Ht8w_aem_tOPLlSDzIFGCZawkFfS6Q 2025 Ministry of Finance—Government of Nepal (2000). Annual Progress Report. https://www.ird.gov.np/public/pdf/1386560472.pdf 2000 National Statistics Office (2023). National Population & Housing Census2021 ( National Report) .Government of Nepal, Kathmandu. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/390306031_National_Population_and_Housing_Census_2021_International_Migration_in_Nepal Nepal, K 2023 NBSM (2021). Nepal Budget 2077-78 (2020/21)|Highlights from Tax Perspective. NBSM. https://nbsm.com.np/publication/nepal-budget-207778-202021-highlights-from-tax-perspective.html#:~:text=Finance%20Minister%20Mr.,health%20sector%20and%20Agriculture%20Sector 2021 NBSM (2023). Nepal Budget 2080-81 (2023/24). NBSM. https://www.nbsm.com.np/uploads/large/1685705690973479.pdf 2023 NBSM (2025). Nepal Budget2082 -83 (2025 -26) Highlights from Tax Perspective. NBSM. https://nbsm.com.np/uploads/large/1749024881547448.pdf?fbclid=IwY2xjawMbQFFleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFVRHZUMnN2eTV6T0JicFhCAR6byLVVxSZXCgWvsIsCdgetZnoK9k0b9ZhLqE3vrh4dc1aPq095s6hlCs7ncg_aem_9l_q-Vz8oQwe5_hlYdNZsg 2025 Nepal News (2026). Nepal’s Trade Deficit Hits Rs 1.78 Trillion as Imports Outpace Export Gains: Everything You Need to Know. Nepal News. https://english.nepalnews.com/s/business/nepals-trade-deficit-hits-rs-1-78-trillion-as-imports-outpace-export-gains-everything-you-need-to-know/ 2026 Nepali Times (2025). Republicans and Royalists on Nepal’s Street. Nepali Times. https://nepalitimes.com/news/republicans-and-royalists-on-nepal-s-streets 2025 Nepali Times I (2025). How USAID Cut Affects Nepal. https://nepalitimes.com/news/how-usaid-cut-affects-nepal 2025 NEPSE Trading (2026). Political Uncertainty Keeps Nepal’s Stock Market in SidewaysTrend, Investors Remain Cautious. https://nepsetrading.com/blog/political-uncertainty-keeps-nepals-stock-market-in-sideways-trend-investors-remain-cautious Trend, I 2026 Newbusinessage (2025). Seven Out of 15 Finance Companies Report Losses[Instagram Post]. Instagram. https://www.instagram.com/newbusinessage/p/DFNSLd2PR5t/?locale=id&hl=th 2025 Panday, K. (2024). 1000s of Businesses Are Shutting Down in Nepal [Linkedin’s Post]. Linkedin. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/kailashpanday_economicslowdown-nepaleconomy-empoweringnepal-activity-7187651087019950080-wVYq Panday, K. 2024 Panthee, K. R. (2019). Is Tax Burden in Nepal Really High? Journal of Economic Concerns, 10,65-73. https://necs.org.np/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Is-Tax-Burden-In-Nepal-Really-High-By-Keshav-Raj-Panthee.pdf Panthee, K. 2019 Paudyal, M. (2017). With 20 Percent Weight for ‘Geography’, All Three Regions Would Have Benefited. Interview Given or Shared by Prof. Bhim Prasad Subedi, Central Department of TU. Republica National Daily. https://www.myrepublica.nagariknetwork.com/news/with-20-percent-weight-for-geography-all-three-regions-would-have-benefitted Paudyal, M. Subedi, C 2017 Pokharel, P. (2025). Challenges to Nepal’s Republican Structure from Monarchists and Why? Tricontinental Asia. https://thetricontinental.org/asia/challlenges-to-nepal-republic/ Pokharel, P. 2025 Powell, G. B. (2000). Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions. Yale University Press. Powell, G. 2000 Prasai, L. P. (2024). Optimal Public Debt Threshold for Nepal. Nepal Rastra Bank. https://www.nrb.org.np/contents/uploads/2024/05/nrb-wp-58-2024-5.pdf Prasai, L. 2024 Rahn, R., & Fox, H. (1996). What Is the Optimal Size of Government? Vernon K. Krieble Foundation. Rahn, R. Fox, H. 1996 Republica National Daily (2021). Major Highlights of Budget for Fiscal Year 2021/22 (with Full Budget). Republica National Daily. https://myrepublica.nagariknetwork.com/news/major-highlights-of-budget-for-fiscal-year-2021-22 2021 Republica National Daily (2026). Nepal’s Public Debt Climbs to Rs 2.974 Trillion, 45.07% of GDP. Republica National Daily. https://myrepublica.nagariknetwork.com/news/nepals-public-debt-reaches-rs-2974-trillion-4507-percent-of-gdp-as-debt-ser-31-75.html?fbclid=IwY2xjawTdjN1leHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFzNDVXR1dQYU5qclBYb3lEc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHjpYL-m9006VC44zjDNHRqJ1hRHF_onzRZrp9aSXcoDt9dCBL7AmENMLpQ_e_aem_3lukowon9Y7cpk4PtuawAw 2026 Republica I National Daily (2025). Nepal’s Public Debt Reaches Rs. 2.622 Trillion. Republica National Daily. https://myrepublica.nagariknetwork.com/news/nepals-public-debt-reaches-rs-2622-trillion-50-90.html 2025 Republica II National Daily (2025). Nepal Trade Deficit Soars to Rs 1.527 Trillion, 82 pc Export Boom Last FY. Republica National Daily. https://myrepublica.nagariknetwork.com/news/nepals-trade-deficit-soars-to-rs-1527-trillion-despite-82-pc-export-boom-la-57-22.html 2025 Republica III National Daily (2025). Nepal’s Public Debt Crosses Rs 2.611 Trillion. Republica National Daily. https://myrepublica.nagariknetwork.com/news/nepals-public-debt-crosses-rs-2611-trillion-24-48.html 2025 Scully, G. W. (2003). Optimal Taxation, Economic Growth and Income Inequality. Public Choice, 115,299-312. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024223916710 10.1023/A:1024223916710https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024223916710 Scully, G. Taxation, E 2003 102422 10.1023/A:1024223916710 Sedhain, P. R. (2025). Why Constitutional Amendments Have Been Sidelined and Why Amendments Are Harder than Ever. Nepal News. https://english.nepalnews.com/s/sports/why-constitutional-amendments-have-beensidelined-and-why-amendments-are-harder-than-ever/ Sedhain, P. 2025 Share Sansar (2025). Government of Nepal Achieves Over 83% of Revenue Target; Capital Expenditure Lags behind at 63.20% asof Shrawan 1. Share Sansar. https://www.sharesansar.com/newsdetail/government-of-nepal-achieves-over-83-of-revenue-target-capital-expenditure-lags-behind-at-6320-as-of-shrawan-1-2025-07-17 2025 Shrestha, S. S. (2016). Foreign Trade Situation of Nepal. PYC Nepal Journal of Management, 9, 78-82. https://doi.org/10.3126/pycnjm.v9i1.41136 10.3126/pycnjm.v9i1.41136https://doi.org/10.3126/pycnjm.v9i1.41136 Shrestha, S. 2016 10.3126/pycnjm.v9i1.41136 Thapa, D. (2007). Loharauli, Badasari & Karuwani; Hatty-Farsatikar6,7,8,9 {2063 /64 BC(2006 -2007 AD) }. Student Partnership Worldwide—Nepal. https://www.academia.edu/126258946/Loharauli_Badasari_and_Karuwani_Hatty_Farsatikar_6_7_8_9_2063_64_BC_2006_2007_AD_ Thapa, D. Loharauli, B 2007 Thapa, D. (2015). A General Assessment on Labor Market of Nepal. Central Department of Public Administration—Tribhuvan University. https://www.academia.edu/126233429/A_General_Assessment_on_Labor_Market_of_Nepal Thapa, D. 2015 Thapa, D. (2017a). A General Highlight of Study on Comprehensive Principle, as New and Innovative Principle in Context & Essentiality of Rational & Pragmatic Delimitation of Federal Parliamentary Area…. Neeti Anushandhan Pratishthan and Accountability Initiative—Kathmandu, Nepal. https://www.academia.edu/126169432/A_General_Highlight_of_Study_on_Comprehensive_Principle_as_New_and_Innovative_Principle_in_Context_and_Essentiality_of_Rational_and_Pragmatic_Delimitation_of_Federal_Parliamentary_Area_ Thapa, D. Kathmandu, N Thapa, D. (2017b). The Federal and State Parliamentary Electoral Area Plan of Rupandehi District of Nepal.Neeti Anushandhan Pratishthan and Accountability Initiative—Kathmandu, Nepal. https://www.academia.edu/127433346/Federal_and_State_Parliamentary_Electoral_Area_Plan_of_Rupandehi_District_of_Nepal Thapa, D. Kathmandu, N Thapa, D. (2026a). Nepalese Crisis and Possible Interventions in the Context of Its Electoral Delimitation and Governing Structure. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 14,500 -533. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2026.143028 10.4236/jss.2026.143028https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2026.143028 Thapa, D. 2026 10.4236/jss.2026.143028 Thapa, D. (2026b). The Potential Governing Structural Reformative Solution in the Context of the Nepalese Crisis. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 14,368 -406 . https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2026.145022 10.4236/jss.2026.145022https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2026.145022 Thapa, D. 2026 10.4236/jss.2026.145022 The Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal 2015. (1959). Government of Nepal. https://www.scribd.com/document/1063957233/1959-constitution-english 2015 The Himalayan Times (2023). Real Estate Market Faced Turmoil in Fiscal Year 2022-23. https://thehimalayantimes.com/business/real-estate-market-faced-turmoil-in-fiscal-year-2022-23 2023 The Himalayan Times (2022). Trade Deficit at Rs 1.7 Trillion in Fiscal 2021-22. The Himalayan Times National Daily. https://thehimalayantimes.com/business/trade-deficit-at-rs-17-trillion-in-fiscal-2021-22 2022 The Interim Constitution of Nepal 2063 (2007). Government of Nepal. https://constitutionnet.org/sites/defaut/files/Interrim%20Constitution%20of%20Nepal%202007.pdf 2063 2063 2007 The Rising Nepal National Daily (2026). Budget 2026/027: Total Rs. 2124.34 Billion. The Rising Nepal National Daily. https://risingnepaldaily.com/news/81097 2026 Wikipedia (2021). Census in Nepal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_in_Nepal 2021 Wikipedia (2023). List of Banks in Nepal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banks_in_Nepal 2023 Wikipedia (2025) . 2025 Nepalese Gen Z Protests. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Nepalese_Gen_Z_protests?fbclid=IwY2xjawM1mxBleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETE5S2ZMYThTa3E3YUJMRWRjAR7FLVY__KEendKFqdzA5jgle5Q6Ks5RxQre1WYiQKgpJI9PjZ61dbscVJt5mg_aem_rX-gFGgz8se0pI-Wod6LCQ#:~:text=Also%20known%20as%20%22the%20Gen,of%20mismanagement%20of%20public%20funds 2025 Wikipedia (2026). 2026 Nepal-Tibet Floods. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Nepal%E2%80%93Tibet_floods 2026 Worldometer (2025). Nepal Population(Live). https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/nepal-population/ 2025 Worldometer (2026). Nepal GDP (2026). Worldometer. https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/nepal-gdp/ 2026 Worldometer I (2017). India Population (Live). https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/india-population/ 2017 Worldometer II (2017). Nepal Population (Live). https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/nepal-population/ 2017