By Ranju Kafle
Kathmandu, Feb. 9: Defendants of the writ petitions filed against the move of Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli to dissolve the House of Representatives (HoR) have claimed that seeking a fresh mandate was a natural democratic practice.
Pleading in the constitutional bench of the Supreme Court they said that the constitution has ensured legal rights to the Prime Minister to dissolve the House for a fresh mandate if some hitches in governing come up.
Legal practitioners argued that an elected Prime Minister cannot escape from his responsibility towards people. They also said that the drafts of the Citizenship Act and MCC were blocked in the House intentionally to undermine the rights of the executive head.
Chief Justice Cholendra SJB Rana strictly limited 5, 10 to 15 minutes time for the pleading today in the bench. Today’s hearing process moved faster than other days. Thirteen advocates including Mahesh Nepal, Chandra Prakash Regmi, Muna Lamichhane,

Mukunda Adhikari, Lokraj Kharel, Tanka Dulal, Ananta Raj Luitel, Bhojraj Acharya and Shanti Devi Khanal pleaded on behalf of the Prime Minister on Monday.
Advocate Ishwori Bhattarai began the pleading and said dissolving the House for a fresh mandate was a political matter. He said the move was essential to maintain discipline inside the ruling party.
Advocate Chandra Prakash Regmi said that the Prime Minister has a right to dissolve the House. There was a dispute between Regmi and Chief justice Cholendra SJB Rana about the allotment of time. The CJ asked him to furnish his note in writing than taking too long time.
Similarly, senior advocate Rabi Narayan Khanal said that the leadership of the ruling Nepal Communist Party failed to maintain parliamentary discipline.
“The PM tried for two years to maintain harmony in the party and when he realised the situation was beyond his control he decided to go for a fresh mandate,” Khanal added.
The intra-party dispute restricted the PM to make deliveries as pledged to the people. So he decided to share his uneasiness with the people, he added.
Another advocate Luitel said that the Prime Minister can dissolve the House if it failed to perform as per the aspirations of the people. He presented international instances and said that the dissolution was a political matter.
The hearing in the constitutional bench on Tuesday has been postponed to mourn the sad demise of former justice Indraraj Pandey.  
The hearing is continuing for the last 20 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 House dissolution case.