After violent protests that left 74 dead, Nepal’s elected government has fallen, with its Parliament dissolved and former jurist Sushila Karkileading an interim government until the 2026 elections. While the Gen Z protesters had legitimate grievances including poor governance, entrenched corruption and intolerance of critical views, seen in the ousted CPN-UML-led government’s banning of 23 social media websites — the transition itself was blatantly unconstitutional, violating Article 76 of Nepal’s 2015 Constitution which permits dissolution only after failed Prime Minister appointments. Yet, considering the exigent circumstances, there is little purchase for judicial review of the steps taken last week. Notably, the President did not dissolve the upper house, the National Assembly. More troubling were the protesters’ egregious actions which included burning Parliament and the Supreme Court (destroying vital documents). Nepal is expected to suffer severe economic losses besides governance issues due to the destruction of property and documents. The targeting of democratic institutions suggests an assault on Nepal’s post-Constitutional order — institutions established after the painstaking constitution-writing process that followed the much-needed ending of a decade-long civil war in 2006, overcoming an anachronistic and discredited monarchy and which included marginalised sections beyond Kathmandu valley’s power structures — even if there was half-hearted or ineffective implementation of the Constitution’s spirit and letter.