Prime Minister KP Oli has submitted his written response to the Supreme Court which had earlier sought his clarification on the government's decision to dissolve the House of Representatives.

The Apex Court received PM Oli's response via the Office of the Attorney General on Thursday.

In the response furnished to defend his action, Oli has mentioned that it is not up to judiciary to appoint a Prime Minister as it cannot undertake the legislative and the executive functions of the state.

"The Court's duty is to interpret the Constitution and the existing laws, it cannot play the role of the legislative or the executive bodies," Oli said, adding "Appointment of a Prime Minister is absolutely a political and an executive process."

The Prime Minister, also defending the involvement of the President in this whole issue, elaborated further that Article 76 of the Constitution grants the sole right to appoint a Prime Minister to the President only. "As per Article 76 (5), there is no such provision of a person gaining or losing vote of confidence in House being examined by the legislative or the judiciary."

The PM argued that the HoR was dissolved constitutionally as per the order of the Supreme Court. "An order has been issued stating that there is a constitutional provision to dissolve the House of Representatives as per the Article 76 (7) of the Constitution if there was no option of appointing another member of the House of Representatives as the Prime Minister or the appointed Prime Minister could not get the vote of confidence," reads the response states.

Oli reasoned that the House was dissolved following the failure of formation of an alternative government, exhausting all options of Article 76 as mentioned in the Supreme Court order and therefore, the act was natural and constitutional.

The Supreme Court had issued a show cause notice to the Office of the Prime Minister and the President's Office to furnish a written response within seven days, on June 9.