Kathmandu : The ruling parties’ lawmakers have committed not to breach the letters and spirit of the constitution. Speaking in the meeting of the House of Representatives (HoR) have argued that the political and constitutional crisis was surfaced when the erstwhile government failed to abide by the constitutional responsibility and values. Nepali Congress lawmaker Prakash Man Singh reminded that the CPN (UML) led government was toppled down as the party failed to manage intra party disputes.

He added that they were compelled to move ahead following political and constitutional courses after then government violated constitutional norms and general practices as well. He also ironized then KP Sharma Oli led government for not materializing its agendas including operation of railway and ships. On the other hand, leader Singh argued that his party led government has shown serious responsibility of managing anti COVID-19 vaccines in the very first day of receiving the vote of confidence. Leader Singh also former DPM suggested government moving ahead following effective vision and agendas.

He also suggested for adopting balanced foreign policy. Leader of another power sharing party, CPN (Maoist Centre), Haribol Prasad Gajurel, said that the erstwhile around two-third majority government was ousted after dissolving the pariamnet for twice. He blamed that the previous government had encroached the laws time and again. Gajurel argued that discussion was not held in the then Nepal Communist Party and parliamentary party while dissolving the parliament in first time, raising the question, “Is the dissolution of the parliament a feature of a party system? Is that the discipline?” The country is now in this place due to support of all leaders, he added.

Gajurel clarified that the incumbent government has been formed with majority of the elected parliamentarians, not from the government, adding the Court had only interpreted the constitution. Indicating towards the main opposition party, CPN (UML), Gajurel said, “Who created the situation to knock the door of the Supreme Court for twice?”