HOR DISSOLUTION CASE
KATHMANDU, FEBRUARY 8
Senior Advocate Bishnu Bhattarai pleaded on behalf of Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli before the constitutional bench arguing that the PM had dissolved the House of Representatives also with the objective of winning two-thirds majority to amend the constitution.
Bhattarai said that while the PM had not offered detailed explanations for the need to amend the constitution in his written submission, it was clear from Speaker Agni Prasad Sapkota's refusal to take part in the Constitutional Council meeting that the government was facing obstacles in making appointments in constitutional bodies, including the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority.
He also said that the PM had the power to dissolve the HoR when he felt that the constitution had to be amended and since these issues were of political nature, the court should not review these issues. He said the PM dissolved the HoR to get rid of the current HoR where his own party members had hindered his attempt to pass the Millennium Challenge Corporation agreement and citizenship bill. Bhattarai said the PM dissolved the HoR to realise his goals of development and prosperity.
Advocate Loknath Kharel said that the PM in the United Kingdom enjoyed the prerogative to dissolve the HoR and Nepal PM also had the same prerogative.
Justice Sapana Pradhan Malla then asked him if there had been any example where countries have written constitution as in Nepal, which did not explicitly give the PM the power to dissolve the HoR, and yet the PM had dissolved it.
Advocate Loknath Kharel cited a book written by former chief justice Kalyan Shrestha in 1998 to make an argument in favour of the dissolution of the Lower House. Justice Anil Kumar Sinha cut him short saying, "much water has flown under the Bagmati River since then."
Advocate Mukunda Adhikari also argued before the bench that the PM enjoyed the prerogative to dissolve the HoR as none of the Articles of the constitution prohibited dissolution of the HoR before the end of the five-year term.
He also said that the PM should have dissolved the HoR six months ago, when it failed to elect a deputy speaker, who is also a member of the Constitutional Council.
Advocate Bishwamani Adhikari said the PM had dissolved the HoR to strengthen the parliamentary system as fresh elections would end the current political deadlock. Justice Tej Bahadur KC then asked him what would happen if midterm polls did not ensure two-thirds majority for the PM.
Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher JB Rana tried to strictly enforce the time limit for private lawyers defending the prime minister. He repeatedly reminded the lawyers when they exceeded their allotted time.
The bench gave 15 minutes to senior advocates and 10 minutes to advocates to present their arguments.
Meanwhile, the SC has decided not to conduct hearing tomorrow as it will organise a condolence prayer meet for former justice of the SC Indra Raj Pandey who passed away today. Pandey, a resident of Kathmandu, died at the age of 86.
A version of this article appears in the print on February 9, 2021, of The Himalayan Times.
