Kathmandu: The issue of dissolution of the House of Representatives has been heard after 11 days of continuous debate. After a debate between the petitioners, the public prosecutor and the Prime Minister’s lawyer, the Speaker’s lawyer and the Amicus Curiae, the Constitutional Court has ordered to keep the issue of dissolution of the House of Representatives under review on Monday. On that day, the bench will decide whether to set another date.

After the hearing on Monday, the judges of the Constitutional Court will hold a week-long internal discussion to prepare the verdict. During the debate between the parties, the issue of dissolution of the House of Representatives this time focused on the jurisdiction of the President and his decision. Legal practitioners from both sides focused on the party system of Article 76 (5) of the Constitution, the whip system while supporting the appointment of the Prime Minister.

1. President’s powers, decisions and their scope

The issue of dissolving the House of Representatives this time was not as focused on the decision of the Prime Minister and his jurisdiction as before. Instead, President Vidyadevi Bhandari’s decision to reject the two contenders for the PM’s job was called into question and its constitutionality.

The constitution limits the president to a rhetorical role. There is a constitutional provision that most of his decisions are based on the recommendations of the Council of Ministers or other bodies. Issues such as returning the bill for reconsideration and appointing a prime minister to form a government are decisions that are made at his discretion.

2. Is the practice of section 76 (5) partisan or independent?

Deuba had submitted a petition to the President demanding the post of Prime Minister with the support of disgruntled UML lawmakers. In the absence of party support, the president rejected his claim without acknowledging the support of some lawmakers. Deuba’s side has challenged the president’s decision in court, claiming it was unconstitutional. During the hearing of the dissolution case, there was a debate from various angles on whether any Member of Parliament should claim the post of Prime Minister with the support of the MPs of different parties or require a party decision.

3. Whip and action estimates

This question is also linked to the question of party affiliation under Article 76 (5) of the Constitution. Based on the letter sent by UML and Janata Samajwadi Party, the President did not recognize the independent support of the parliamentarians. In it, she relied on the action to be taken on the charge of whip violation and the assumption that the parliamentary seat would then become vacant. According to Deuba’s claim, the whip used by the parliamentary parties is limited to the work inside the parliament.

4. Direct recommendation without a motion of confidence

Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, who was re-appointed under Article 76 (3), did not propose a vote of confidence in the House of Representatives. On the contrary, he said that he was not in a position to get a vote of confidence as the previous situation had not changed and recommended to the President to proceed with the process as per Article 76 (5). The question has arisen that the President has started the process of selecting another Prime Minister as per the recommendation of the incumbent Prime Minister who did not resign and did not test the vote of confidence.

Court has been ordered to keep it in view on the 28th Asar (Monday) 12 July 2021. On that day, the bench will decide whether to set another date to public the decision also.