The relationship is one of supremacy and subordination, tested by two classic contrasts: (a) Constitution vs. statute — the two tests: Source test (constituent vs. ordinary power): the constitution is made by the constituent power — the people acting through a constituent assembly or an equivalent extraordinary process, a power superior to the ordinary organs; a statute is made by the very legislature the constitution creates. The maker's rank explains the product's rank.
Supremacy test: the constitution is fundamental law; law inconsistent with it is void. In Nepal this is explicit: Article 1 declares the Constitution the fundamental law and any inconsistent law void to that extent, and the Supreme Court enforces this under Article 133 (any citizen may petition to declare a law void). A statute can be repealed by a later ordinary statute; the constitution can be changed only through its own stricter procedure (Article 274: two-thirds of the existing members of both houses; provincial-assembly consensus for boundary and Schedule-6 changes; a small unamendable core of sovereignty, self-rule, territorial integrity and popular sovereignty). (b) Statutes as a source of constitutional law: the constitution fixes the frame; statutes fill the rooms. Election legislation, the Supreme Court Act, the Constitutional Council Act, legislation implementing directive policies, and — repeatedly litigated — statutes that restrict fundamental rights (which courts must then test for reasonableness) are all constitutional law in operation. A statute can expand a right's enjoyment (Right to Information legislation), organise an institution (Judicial Council procedures), or trigger constitutional scrutiny (a statute invading a competence or a right is the raw material of judicial review). Presumption of constitutionality: courts presume every statute valid and read it, if possible, to avoid constitutional conflict — invalidation is the last resort (the doctrine of constitutional avoidance, met again in Unit 14).