• HOUSE DISSOLUTION 2.0
KATHMANDU, JUNE 29
Deputy Attorney General Padam Prasad Pandey, who appeared before the constitutional bench of the Supreme Court to defend the government in the House of Representatives dissolution case, said Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli recommended dissolution of the House of Representatives out of compulsion as a new government could not be formed.
He claimed that President Bidhya Devi Bhandari's refusal to appoint Oli or Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba as prime minister could not be challenged as she had the mandate to judge whether or not a candidate could win a vote of confidence.
He cited the example of former Indian prime minister Charan Singh, who was appointed the PM by the president though he had not submitted signatures of lawmakers.
Pandey claimed that UML and JSP-N lawmakers could not support Deuba as anti-defection law would apply to them. Some lawmakers from Oli's CPN-UML and Janata Samajbadi Party-Nepal had supported Deuba's bid for prime ministership when he went to the President on May 21 claiming to be appointed new PM under Article 76 (5) of the constitution. Pandey argued that they had defied their party's whip. "If a lawmaker defies his own party's whip and supports another party's leader, s/he will have to either form a separate party or face the risk of losing his/her seat," he argued.
Pandey said since in the UK and India, the PM's use of power to dissolve the HoR contributed to political stability, in Nepal also the PM should have the same power to maintain political stability.
Justice Ishwar Prasad Khatiwada then asked Pandey whether he meant that the court verdict led to political instability.
Pandey said if people had to choose between the stability of the Parliament and the stability of the government, they should be allowed to choose stability of the government.
Another Deputy Attorney General Bishwaraj Koirala said since lawmakers were bound by party rules, they could not support other parties' lawmakers' bid for premiership.
If Article 75 (5) is intended to exempt lawmakers from party whips, there should have been a provision confirming that, but there is no such proviso, as such lawmakers cannot support other parties' leaders' bid for premiership, Koirala added.
Another Deputy Attorney Shyam Bhattarai argued that since the HoR was dissolved after it failed to function properly, the people should be allowed to judge whether or not the dissolution of the HoR by the government was right. He said the PM should be allowed to seek fresh mandate.
Government attorneys have one more hour to present their case and they are supposed to end their oral submission tomorrow.
Private lawyers representing the government and Speaker Agni Prasad Sapkota will give oral submissions from tomorrow.
A version of this article appears in the print on June 30 2021, of The Himalayan Times.
