Kathmandu : The government’s defense is being debated in the Constitutional bench of the Supreme Court on the writ petition against the dissolution of the House of Representatives. In the debate held by the government on Monday and Tuesday, the bench has asked five main questions to the public prosecutors.

1. Can Prime Minister Oli not take a vote of confidence?

Judges have demanded an answer from the public prosecutor on the issue of Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli not going to the parliament for a vote of confidence. Deputy Attorney General Padam Prasad Pandey, who came to debate the government’s defense on Tuesday, claimed that Prime Minister Oli did not go to the parliament for a vote of confidence as he did not want to be the prime minister as per Article 76 (3).

Immediately, Chief Justice Cholendra Shamsher JBR asked, “Shouldn’t we go to Parliament to get votes or not?” But, can he be deceived? ‘

Chief Justice JBR questioned whether the Speaker should inform the President whether the Prime Minister has received a vote of confidence or not. ‘Not getting votes (information) from the Speaker? Isn’t that the procedure? ‘He asked.

2. What is the basis for the President to look into 76 (5)?

Initiating the debate on behalf of the government, Attorney General Ramesh Badal on Monday claimed that the president has the right to decide whether the lawmaker who claims to be the prime minister under Article 76 (5) can get a vote of confidence or not.

In 76 (2), the President has to appoint directly after the decision of the parties. In 76 (5), the President should look into the basis. That premise should not be controversial, dubious, unreliable. The president will decide on this basis, ”he said.

3. Can the President not appoint the Prime Minister or not?

Attorney General Badal was asked by Chief Justice JBR about the three bases mentioned by the President. Badal did not answer the question.

Debating on behalf of the petitioner, the lawyer argued that the President did not have the right to reject the claim of the Prime Minister as per Article 76 (5). The bench has sought an answer to this question in the course of the government’s side.

Chief Justice JBR questioned whether the provision that the President should appoint the Prime Minister as per Article 76 (5) was binding.

‘The procedure under Section 76 (5) is to appoint the Prime Minister. The prime minister should be appointed by the president. There is no question of doing so. JBR said, “Therefore, the provision of Article 76 (5) means that any member of the House of Representatives can be appointed.” Two people have applied. It was argued that it was not for non-appointment. ‘

Chief Justice JBR also questioned whether the claimant should be given a chance to elect another prime minister if he does not present a basis for a vote of confidence under Article 76 (5).

‘If the premise was not presented then that opportunity should have been given again. He has been given the basis to appoint the Prime Minister ! Not given for non-appointment, the question has arisen as to whether alternatives should have been sought if the grounds of both the petitioners were not presented, ‘said Chief Justice .

4. Independent MPs can’t decide on their own?

Another question posed by Deputy Attorney General Pandey on Tuesday is whether an independent lawmaker can withdraw his support to a government.

Judge Ishwor Khatiwada asked the constitution was silent on what would happen if an independent lawmaker wanted to withdraw his support.

Judge Khatiwada questioned, “There are currently four independent MPs in the House of Representatives.” There will be 14 or 44 tomorrow. Once they support the government, will it ever be withdrawn? ‘

5. Is the court the cause of political instability?

Judge Ishwor Khatiwada questioned whether the government’s counsel had argued that the court’s decision was the only cause of political instability. “Is the reason for the political instability only the court’s decision or other reasons?” He asked.

Judge Khatiwada said, “Dissolution has brought stability to India.” The dissolution of Nepal’s parliament since 2052 BS has only given instability. You have to look at it too. ‘