Kathmandu: Prime Minister Balendra Shah has come under sharp public scrutiny after walking out of the joint sitting of the Federal Parliament while President Ram Chandra Poudel was presenting the government’s annual policies and programs.

The incident occurred on Monday during the formal address by President Poudel to the joint session of the Federal Parliament, where the government’s policies and programs for the upcoming fiscal year were being announced. While lawmakers and ministers remained seated, Prime Minister Balen left the House midway, drawing immediate criticism across social media and mainstream media.

The Prime Minister’s action has triggered serious concern among political observers and members of civil society, with many interpreting the walkout as a sign of disregard for parliamentary norms, democratic institutions, and constitutional process.

Several public figures have expressed concern, stating that the Prime Minister’s conduct reflected a lack of confidence in Nepal’s democratic system and parliamentary values. Critics have questioned whether the move was symbolic opposition to his own government’s policies or an intentional political statement.

Although discussion surrounding the walkout has intensified, there has been no official clarification from the Prime Minister’s office, his party leadership, or senior ministers. A brief explanation posted by one of Balen’s close advisors claimed that he had left due to health reasons, but the statement was later deleted, further fueling speculation.

Observers have also pointed out that there was no visible indication of illness in the Prime Minister’s appearance or movement before his departure. Questions remain over what urgent circumstance, if any, required him to leave during one of Parliament’s most important constitutional proceedings.

The controversy has now expanded into a broader constitutional debate. Political commentators have begun raising concerns over proposals advocating for a directly elected executive leadership model in Nepal. Many argue that the current parliamentary structure ensures checks and balances through institutional accountability, whereas a directly elected prime minister could potentially weaken constitutional oversight if executive power becomes concentrated.

The incident has reignited discussions about the future of Nepal’s governance model, with growing debate over whether constitutional reforms could strengthen or destabilize democratic accountability in the country.

As criticism continues to mount, the silence from the Prime Minister’s secretariat has only deepened public curiosity and political speculation surrounding the walkout.