By Ranju Kafle
Kathmandu, Jan. 22: Hearing on the writ petitions filed against the dissolution of the House of Representatives (HoR) continued for the fifth consecutive day on Thursday.
Pleadings on three of thirteen writ petitions filed against the dissolution completed on the fifth day and the hearing on the fourth writ began today.
Hearing took a pace from Thursday after the Court strictly implemented time limit on pleading.
The SC asked the advocates to manage the given time while submitting their documents in the Constitutional Bench. As a result, altogether seven advocates pleaded today while until Wednesday, only two or three advocates were pleading a day.
More than 300 other incidences were waiting for their turn while only 22 advocates, on behalf of petitioners, have pleaded against the dissolution.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court had asked for the dissolution notice published in Nepal Gazette. Advocate Om Prakash Aryal drew the attention of the Court towards the House dissolution notice published in the gazette. "Notice of such moves to dissolve the House generally gets published in Nepal Gazette," he said, adding no such notice was published after the dissolution of the House. Aryal questioned the bench, was the move certified by the President? “It is not published in the gazette," he added.
After this, Justice Anil Kumar Sinha asked deputy attorney general Padam Prasad Pandey to submit the notice whether it was published in the gazette to the court. However, Pandey did not submit it till the hearing session concluded on Thursday.
The hearing session today began from the pleading of advocate Aryal. He said that the move of the Prime Minister was unconstitutional. "The PM went out of track, above the Constitution and dissolved the House," he said.
Similarly, another petitioner Smrit Kharel said that the Prime Minister did not dissolve the House based on parliamentary practice. "When the Constitution has clear provisions in it, parliamentary practice cannot be the reason," he added. According to him, the Prime Minister cannot exercise the rights which the Constitution has not given him. He also said seeking for the formation of new government from fresh mandate is a parliamentary practice but not a constitutional step.
Another advocate Tika Ram Bhattarai said that the government formed under the Article 76(II) is not allowed to dissolve the House.
The hearing will continue on Friday.