The dissolution of the House of Representatives by Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli, the dispute is now under consideration in the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of Nepal and the issue of whether the Prime Minister has dissolved the House of Representatives is constitutional or unconstitutional. After the debate between the lawyers of both the parties, the court will give a final decision on whether the dissolution of the House of Representatives is constitutional or unconstitutional and the politics of the country will move forward accordingly.
However, in the meantime, what the court decides has become a matter of interest and concern for all. If we look at the debate of the petitioner’s lawyers, the dissolution of the House of Representatives by Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli is unconstitutional and should be dismissed. Judging from the debate of the opposition PM’s lawyers, the dissolution of the House of Representatives is constitutional and the writ petition should be dismissed. In the Constitution of Nepal, the duty of a lawyer is to argue for the victory of the party while arguing on behalf of the party. The dissolution of the House of Representatives cannot be said to be right or wrong on the basis of the legal obligation of the legal profession and religion.
Whatever the arguments of the legal practitioners of both the parties, the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Supreme Court will be final and according to the constitution, the decision must be accepted by all parties. This is the provision made in Articles 126 and 28 of the Constitution of Nepal. Failure to comply could result in a lawsuit for contempt of court, and if found to be in contempt, the penalty is one year in prison or a fine of Rs 10,000 or both. However, if the person concerned apologizes before the allegation is confirmed, the court may adjourn the contempt proceedings.
Now, Nepal and other countries of the world are seriously watching the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Supreme Court regarding the dissolution of the House of Representatives by Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli. The Nepali people, various scholars, intellectuals, legal practitioners, former Chief Justices and Judges of the Supreme Court and the political parties and their leaders, activists are all interpreting and discussing the dissolution of the House of Representatives in their own way.
Most of the people do not seem to be interested in the interpretation and deliberation of what is right and wrong in dissolving this House of Representatives. Because even when supporting political parties for such a big change in the country, the leaders of those parties do not seem to have done anything in the interest of the country and the people and only for the personal interest, position and benefit of themselves and the cadres. The people have no hope that their party representatives will work and the people are disappointed. So maybe when the Prime Minister dissolves the House of Representatives, neither the parliamentarians nor the people are on the streets. Some party workers are in protest while some are against KP. Slogans are being chanted in the streets in support of Oli.
As far as civil society leaders are concerned, they all gather from time to time for their own interests, make statements and heat the streets, but the people do not seem to have much support because the people understand that all these political parties are on the streets.
In fact, civil society seems to be the same because they are shouting that everyone should abide by the constitution, but they do not believe that the courts will interpret the constitution. They don’t have the patience to remain silent until the final verdict comes from the court. To oppose the wrong thing and what is right or wrong to dissolve the House of Representatives? It is the job of a civilized society to raise slogans on the road before the court verdict. It is neither democratic nor constitutional from any point of view for the civil society to take to the streets in protest of the issue under consideration in the court. It seems that the judges are their own and what they said should be decided by the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court on the dissolution of the House of Representatives.
Former Speaker Mr. Daman Nath Dhungana and all civil society leaders applauded, saying that the judges are only sitting in the court to get jobs, the decision should be made according to what we said, otherwise the day may come when the judge will be dragged from the street and beaten. Nepal’s civil society leaders also have amazing thinking and reasoning. Seeing the rude, undemocratic language, style and behavior of the leaders of our civil society engaged in building a civilized society, it seems that there is no law in this country to make the members of such civil society accountable to the society.
The same is true of the country’s political parties and their cadre leaders, the Prime Minister. With the support of the people, they have promulgated the constitution for the development of the country and the people through democracy, republic and the Constituent Assembly and the self-made Constituent Assembly. Before the Prime Minister himself forms the term of the House of Representatives, the House of Representatives is dissolved to protect the seat and politics of his Prime Minister. He says that his decision is right and the court should say the right thing and the activists applaud.
Even the Prime Minister, the court is an independent body according to the constitution of this country, do not agree with the constitution to interfere. His status and the status of the court are equal according to the constitution in the smooth running of the country. The general knowledge that he cannot go beyond his jurisdiction is not seen in his speech. The Prime Minister felt it was right to dissolve the House of Representatives in accordance with the constitution. The Prime Minister who governs the country may have read the constitution, but he may have sought the opinion of a legal adviser. Even though he is aware that the issue of dissolution of the House of Representatives is currently under consideration in the court, why should he go to the crossroads, alleys, party palaces and do the right thing? The Prime Minister has done his job, now the court will decide what is right and wrong. If the Prime Minister would do everything, why did he create a court, why did he appoint a judge? The job of a judge is not just to get a job. Our Prime Minister K.P. Oli also has an amazing political leadership and role.
He is not at all ashamed to enjoy the taxes paid by the poor Nepali people by shedding blood and sweat. He is not at all worried about the plight of the people. He thinks the people are sheep. He is the Prime Minister. Who can do what? His volley is the constitution, the law. As he is the Prime Minister of the majority of Article 76 (1) of the Constitution, it is not written in the Constitution that he cannot dissolve the House of Representatives, so He dissolved the House of Representatives in accordance with Article 76 (7). He dissolved the House of Representatives because the constitution did not prevent him from dissolving it, so the court must accept that. What if the case is pending in the court? He is against the issue, so he is also the Prime Minister of the country, he can’t even speak to win the issue, he can’t even tell anyone? Will the lawyer show off by arguing in court? Is it a place to show off by arguing against him in court?
Listening to the Prime Minister, it seems that Prime Minister K.P. In Oli’s state, there is no lawyer, no judge, no court. The state has spent in vain in the courts. A majority prime minister does not have to abide by the constitution. The prime minister of the majority is above the constitution. Other state bodies are to be run on the orders of the majority prime minister, not in accordance with the constitution. Once he became the Prime Minister under Article 76 (1), where he once had a majority in the House of Representatives, he do not need to take a vote of confidence in the House of Representatives again as per Article 100. he dissolved the House of Representatives. Now that the people are participating in the re-election of the House of Representatives, the new House of Representatives selects the Prime Minister.
The dead House of Representatives cannot be revived just as the dead cannot be saved. Don’t expect a prime minister from the dead, go to the polls. Make the House of Representatives from the surviving people and make me the Prime Minister as much as possible. If not, we will see later. Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli also has a surprising constitutional belief that the court should decide as he has done. However, the general public still has faith in the court and the court has asked Prime Minister K.P. It seems that Oli has been sitting till today without participating in any slogan rally to see what the House of Representatives decides on the dissolution of the House of Representatives.
Now let’s go to court. To this day, what the judges are saying about the dissolution of the House of Representatives seems to have been the subject of much interest and discussion. Television and microphones have been set up outside the court so that the public can hear the debate in the Constitutional Court on the dissolution of the House of Representatives. The court has made an arrangement that everyone can hear and see the debate taking place inside and accordingly news is also coming in various newspapers and magazines.
In the course of the debate, Hon’ble Chief Justice Cholendra Shamsher Jabra has asked various interesting questions. Why can’t the Prime Minister of the majority dissolve the House of Representatives as per Article 76 (1) of the Constitution? Article 76 (7) provides for the dissolution of the House of Representatives. Why is it necessary for the Prime Minister of the majority of Article 76 (1) to use sub-sections 2, 3, 4, 5 of Article 76?
Yesterday, the provision of the constitution of 2047 BS was directly violated. Even now, sub-section 7 of 76 is said to be an alternative to that. Why can’t the Prime Minister of the majority party dissolve the House of Representatives and go for the election? The Prime Minister of the majority party will not run the government in the middle, why not go for a fresh referendum?
Why can’t the Prime Minister dissolve when there is no possibility of forming a government? Why can’t the Prime Minister dissolve when there is no possibility of forming a minority government? ‘How to test the claim that there was no alternative government?
What is the alternative if there is no majority government as per Article 76 of Article 76 of the Constitution, so it is not possible to go directly to Article 7? According to Article 76, Clause 1, the Prime Minister does not have to take a vote of confidence. Will there be stability when the Prime Minister resigns? What to do if two so-called big parties get equal votes?
“The CPN (Maoist) has a majority government. What is the alternative if it does not form a government?” Giving the example of the dissolution of the then Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala in 2051 BS, what would be the alternative if the House of Representatives did not cooperate with the government of the majority party?
What if the Supreme Court overturned the decision to dissolve, and the Prime Minister decided to dissolve again, even after the House of Representatives was reconstituted?
If there is no possibility of forming a government as per Articles 1, 2, 3 and 5 of Article 76 of the Constitution, the House of Representatives will not be dissolved as per Article 7? Of the 275 seats, 172 are for the CPN, 63 for the Congress, 34 for the Madheswadi Party, 3 for other parties and some are vacant.
Where to go to split and dissolve the party? Is it possible to dissolve the House of Representatives while the vote of confidence is still valid or can it be dissolved without the support of the House of Representatives? What will happen if the parliamentary party dissolves after completing the process? “What if the party does not run the government, not the prime minister?”
Is it in the interest or harm of the people for the Supreme Court to reconstitute the House of Representatives and run the government again? What happens if the court rules that the dissolved CPN should run the government again? When the leader of the parliamentary party is the prime minister, is the party and the prime minister different?
Judge Anil Kumar Sinha also asked an interesting question. Can the majority party directly exercise the power of Article 7 or not? Is this session going to explain the hypothetical issue tomorrow? It is a waste of court time, let’s get to the main point. ‘ Judge Sapna Pradhan Malla has also asked an interesting question. The idea is to take this case for how long, 300 lawyers have been involved in one case. How long does it take for everyone to debate? Judges Vishwambhar Prasad Shrestha and Tej Bahadur KC, on the other hand, have to ask less questions. Looking at the questions, it seems that all the judges have the same curiosity. It remains to be seen whether the decision will be unanimous or not.
Therefore, the Constitutional Court of the Supreme Court will decide whether the dissolution of the House of Representatives by Sharma Oli is right or wrong before the five-year term of the House of Representatives, as per clause 61, 77, 83, 84, 85, 93, 95, 126, 128, 133 of the constitution. There is no dispute about giving a final decision based on a decision etc.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Global News break or any other agencies.
Advocate, Supreme Court of Nepal.
Kafle & Lawyers Associates
Trade Tower, Thapathali, Kathmandu, Nepal.
