• HOUSE DISSOLUTION 2.0
KATHMANDU, JUNE 24
Lawyers representing members of the dissolved House of Representatives, including Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba, who have challenged the dissolution of the HoR continued to present their case today, saying that President Bidhya Devi Bhandari erred when she rejected Deuba's claim for prime ministership.
Senior Advocate Harihar Dahal argued before the constitutional bench that the government's argument that the president's decision to reject Deuba's claim for prime ministership could not be challenged in the court was wrong, as the Supreme Court had reviewed decisions of former king Gyanendra and former president Ram Baran Yadav. The Supreme Court had ruled that the anti-corruption royal commission formed by former king Gyanendra was unconstitutional.
The SC had also reviewed the case involving Yadav's decision to reject the government's decision to sack former army chief Rukumangud Katuwal. Dahal said the president did not act transparently when she rejected Deuba's claim at midnight without letting Deuba counter the claim by Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli. He argued that political parties' support was not mandatory for an HoR member to stake claim to form a new government under Article 76 (5) of the constitution.
Senior Advocate Mithilesh Kumar Singh said in India three independent MLAs had become chief ministers (in Orissa, Meghalaya, and Jharkhand) with the support of political parties and Article 76 (5) in essence meant that any member could become the PM with the support of lawmakers, irrespective of their parties. He said the objective of Article 76 (5) was to prevent premature dissolution of the HoR.
Senior Advocate Raman Kumar Shrestha said Article 76 (5) was an ultimate weapon given to HoR members to prevent the dissolution of the House and to keep trying for an alternative government till the last hour.
He said the way Oli was trying to make lawmakers from his party fall in line, preventing other leaders from becoming the PM, justified the existence of Article 76 (5).
He said if the government's argument that President Bhandari's decision to reject claims of Deuba could not be challenged in the court was ruled valid, then that could give rise to dictatorship. "Is the government trying to give an impression that the president is above the law?" he wondered.
He said the president had no right to reject Deuba's claim for prime ministership.
Senior Advocate Gandhi Pandit, who is a professor of law, said the PM, who was heading a minority government under Article 76 (3), had no power to dissolve the HoR as Article 76 (7) clearly stated that only the government formed under Article 76 (5) can recommended dissolution of the HoR. He said Article 76 (5) stipulated that any member of the HoR can stake claim to form a new government, implying that such a government could be formed with the support of lawmakers cutting across party lines.
A version of this article appears in the print on June 25 2021, of The Himalayan Times.
