Senior Advocate Geeta Pathak Sangroula, who pleaded as an amicus curiae in the case challenging the government's decision to dissolve the House of Representatives, said the Supreme Court's decision to reinstate the House of Representatives was a victory for constitutionalism.

She said the apex court's verdict proved that the PM formed under Article 76 (1) did not have the power to dissolve the HoR.

She said the apex court's ruling also clearly stated that majority government formed under Article 76 (1) had more responsibility to shoulder. She said the verdict clearly proved that the meaning of the sub-articles of Article 76 was that all options of forming the government must be explored and when the House failed to give the government, then only the HoR could be dissolved.

Advocate Bhimarjun Acharya, who had pleaded on behalf of the petitioners, said the court's verdict proved that the court was independent and competent to uphold the supremacy of the constitution.

He said the verdict upheld the rule of law. The court had two options - to reinstate the HoR or to validate the government's move dissolving the HoR. Had the court chosen to validate the government's move, every prime minister from now on would tend to dissolve the HoR after two years in the office.

The court verdict has upheld the spirit of the constitution, he added.

A version of this article appears in the print on February 24, 2021, of The Himalayan Times.