If the PM with clear majority in the House is allowed to dissolve the HoR, he can win a majority again and dissolve the HoR again
KATHMANDU, JANUARY 25 Lawyers representing petitioners challenging the dissolution of the House of Representatives continued to argue against Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli’s decision before the constitutional bench of the Supreme Court. Senior Advocate Shambhu Thapa argued that the PM had no prerogative to dissolve the House. He said according to the constitutional, the HoR could not be dissolved as long as the House was able to form a new government. He said Article 76 (7) could be invoked to dissolve the HoR only when the PM lost the vote of confidence in the House. Thapa claimed that the PM himself did not know which article of the constitution he was invoking to dissolve the HoR. Advocate Megha Raj Pokharel argued that the PM heading a majority government could not dissolve the House. When the bench asked Pokharel the reason for that, he said, “If the PM faces obstacles within his own party, then he can use the option of seeking the vote of confidence in the House, or his party can change the parliamentary party leader or the PM can resign from his post. The constitution has not envisaged any other alternative. If the PM with clear majority in the House is allowed to dissolve the HoR, he can win a majority again and dissolve the HoR again.” He said the PM’s move to dissolve the HoR was a malicious act because he did so knowing that the constitution did not give him the power to dissolve the House. “When the government is formed under Article 76 (1), only the party that has clear majority can say that there is no alternative force to form the government. The party can change the parliamentary party leader and the PM anytime. But in this case, the PM has been saying that there is no alternative to his government. He acted with a mala fide intention,” Pokharel said.