By Ranju Kafle
Kathmandu, Jan. 26: Hearing on the writ petitions filed against the dissolution of the House of Representatives (HoR) continued on Monday. Senior advocates Shambhu Thapa and Meghraj Pokharel pleaded on behalf of the petitioners today.
Both of them were pleading on the seventh writ petition registered by Dev Prasad Gurung, Krishna Bhakta Pokharel, Ram Kumari Jhakri and Sashi Sharestha against the Prime Minister and the President for their move to dissolve the House. They have demanded for the restoration of the House.
Presenting his argument, Advocate Pokharel said the move to dissolve the House was beyond the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister. “It is an unconstitutional and inappropriate step; there is no such provision in the Constitution,” he added.
According to Pokharel, an elected Prime Minister with majority votes cannot seek a fresh mandate through an early election. He said Prime Minister Oli needs to be impeached for the unconstitutional move.
Justice Anil Sinha asked Pokharel what would happen if the party with majority votes refused to run the government.
Pokharel replied that the executive head should always be accountable to the Constitution, its provisions and the parliament. “If it fails to do so, he has to resign from the post,” he replied. Pokharel said that the Prime Minister could resign if he was unable to run the government, but he could not dissolve the House. “The parliamentary party could appoint another capable leader to the post for the leadership as the party had majority in the parliament,” he added.
Advocate Thapa also presented his arguments in the apex court today. Thapa sounded satirical towards Attorney General Agni Prasad Kharel and the then Constituent Assembly Chair Subas Nembang in his pleading. “Perhaps, they have one Constitution and we have another one for the pleading, otherwise contents are same,” he said.
Thapa claimed that an elected Prime Minister had no complete rights to dissolve the House because people are sovereign in our constitutional system. The Prime Minister claimed that he had used his right from the Constitution to dissolve the House in his written answer to the court.
“When people are sovereign, nobody has such special rights to dissolve the House,” he added. Thapa said that the executive head could not kill the parliament. His pleading will continue on Tuesday too.
Six more writs still remain to be heard. Attorney General and other advocates will plead on behalf of the government after the hearing on behalf of the petitioners’ completes.