By Ranju Kafle
Kathmandu, Feb.12: Initial pleadings of both petitioners and defendants on the writ petitions filed against dissolution of the House of Representatives (HoR) concluded in the Supreme Court (SC) on Thursday.
Petitioners of the writs had claimed that the Prime Minister’s move was unconstitutional, while defendants claimed that he has legal right to safeguard the political uncertainties.
In all, 11 advocates-- 8 pleading on behalf of the Prime Minister and 3 on behalf of speaker Agni Prasad Sapkota-- pleaded today in the constitutional bench of the SC.
Lawyers who pleaded for the Prime Minister claimed that the elected Prime Minister was stopped from delivering efficiently in line with the expectations of the people. “Unhealthy plots detracted the politics towards anarchism inside the ruling Nepal Communist Party, resulting in parliament dissolution,” they added.
According to them, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli was obstructed to perform his duties by both his cabinet ministers and the House. “Some of his cabinet ministers did not cooperated and the House did not allow the bills like Citizenship, MCC and others to enter into its session,” they argued.
Advocates pleading on behalf of the Prime Minister also claimed that the Prime Minister was trapped from all sides, cabinet and from his own party, so he could not fulfill the promises he made to people at the time of election. “Finally he decided to ask for help from the people, deciding to go ahead with the fresh mandate,” they said.
Advocate Baburam Dahal began the pleading and said that the country has a system where the Prime Minister governs, so he all executive rights.
Justice Anil Kumar Sinha interrupted him and asked whether the Prime Minister has to be responsible towards party laws or not once he is appointed at the post of PM in the country.
“The Prime Minister was obstructed intentionally for the performance which is why he dissolved the parliament,” Dahal responded.
“What would result if no two-thirds majority is gained from mid-term election? Another dissolution?” Justice Sinha asked again. Advocate Dahal replied that the leaders and parties should not be afraid with the poll in democracy.
Justice Sinha again asked if the Prime Minister achieved majority but not two-thirds majority in the election, how would you define the constitution? Who will be constitutional in that case?
“The situation of dissolution came because the Prime Minister was restricted for his executive performance,” Dahal repeated in response. Advocates Pankaj Karna, Dharmaraj Regmi, Bolaram Pandey, Ramchandra Gautam, Bishnumaya Bhusal and Bhagawati Pandey pleaded for the Prime Minister today.
The advocates who pleaded for the peaker of the House of Representative said that the House needs to be restored with clear date and time from the court.
Next, the bench will grant time to the petitioners for the response on the questions raised during hearing from Sunday.
Chief Justice Cholendra SJB Rana asked the advocates to fix names and number of advocates for their response in the next hearing.