By Ranju Kafle
Kathmandu, Feb. 5: Defendants of the writ petitions filed against the dissolution of the House of Representatives (HoR) argued on Thursday that an elected Prime Minister in the Westminster parliamentary system is always powerful.
Three Deputy Attorney Generals, Padam Prasad Pandey, Narayan Prasad Paudyal and Bishworaj Koirala, pleaded in the Supreme Court on behalf of the Prime Minister today.
They all claimed that the Constitution can only limit or restrict the Prime Minister for the dissolution of the House if it is so stated.
Nothing is mentioned clearly like this to limit the Prime Minister from taking the move in the Constitution, they said.
They said that the Constitution accepts that the Prime Minister has intrinsic right for the dissolution because it assumed a powerful executive head with parliamentary rights for an efficient performance.
Deputy Attorney General Pandey began the pleading today and said that the dissolution was warranted for sustainable peace and political stability in the country.  “Stability comes from stable government but not from the parliament,” he added.
“The Prime Minister is the one to deliver to the people as anticipated by them because he is the people’s representative,” he added. He also claimed that the executive had to deliver for tangible result and said sovereign people, not the lawmakers, had the ultimate say.
Pandey said that article 76 (VII) had ensured the rights to the Prime Minister and the conditions were only for the fresh mandate. “The condition is that the Prime Minister has to suggest, the President can dissolve the House and call for an election within next six months,” he added.
Similarly, Paudyal said that the Prime Minister had inherent rights for the dissolution in the Constitution. “We have a parliamentary system for governance and the Prime Minister is powerful in such a system,” he added.
He said that the Prime Minister can ask for the fresh mandate if the House or the parliamentarians do not cooperate with the elected Prime Minister. “People are the ultimate source of power in our country because they are sovereign,” he added.
Justice Anil Sinha interrupted him and asked if the Prime Minister listened to the counterparts or not according to the Law of Natural Justice.
“The situation in the first people’s movement and now are similar and it is mentioned in Article 85 of the Constitution,” Paudyal responded. He also said it was a political matter which needed political settlement.

Another Deputy Attorney General Koirala said that the Constitution nowhere mentioned that the Prime Minister is restricted from dissolving the House, which means he can take the move. “The tenure of the parliament is five years if it is not dissolved earlier for a fresh mandate,” he added. If it is dissolved, they can’t say they had five years’ tenure. “Parties have to go for election; it is the appropriate system of dispute settlement,” he added.
Attorney General Agni Prasad Kharel and senior advocate Sushil Panta have already completed their pleading regarding the case. Defenders are continuing their advocacy in the constitutional bench of the apex court from Monday and it was the fifth day today.
The hearing has been going on for 17 working days in the Supreme Court. The Constitutional Bench comprising Chief Justice Cholendra SJB Rana, Sapana Malla Pradhan, Tej Bahadur KC, Anil Sinha and Bishwombhar Shrestha is hearing the advocacy.
Before this, petitioners had pleaded and blamed that the move of the Prime Minister was unconstitutional.