Kathmandu : During the debate on the issue of dissolution of the House of Representatives on Sunday, questions and answers have been raised between the advocates and the judges in the Constitutional bench. After the debate of the legal practitioner of Speaker Agni Prasad Sapkota ended on Sunday, the respondent debate started on behalf of the petitioner.
Meghraj Pokharel accused the President of rejecting the claim of the Prime Minister as per Article 76 (5) of the Constitution. He said that the party could not give instructions in the sub-section 76 (5) as there was no mention of party whip anywhere.

Pokharel said that the current constitution has a ‘fixed term parliament’ to protect the parliament from repeated dissolution and that the government cannot be dissolved as long as there is an option to give a government from the parliament.
Immediately, Chief Justice Cholendra Shamsher JBR questioned, “The previous decision was based on this principle.” What happened after that, you tell me! Even then, the government was not formed! In 76 (7), it has been said that the government will be dissolved if the House of Representatives is not formed, then why did you go to article (85)? As long as there is a possibility of forming a government from the House of Representatives, yes, if there is no government, then it is possible to go (7). Why do you go for fixed term again? ‘

In response, Pokharel argued that Article 76 (5) should be interpreted on the basis of Article 85, which mentions the tenure of the House of Representatives. Without answering him, Judge Ananda Mohan Bhattarai again asked, “The interpretation of Article 76 (5) that came from the Opposition, there is a term, ‘by a member as per clause (2).’ Tell me the meaning of that term!”
Advocate Pokharel replied that the clause made it mandatory for the Prime Minister to take a vote of confidence. Pokharel said that it was differentiated from sub-section (2) by including the phrase ‘if any basis is presented’ in sub-section (5). He said, “If any ground is presented,” which is not in sub-section (2), sir. Now what is this basis? (2) means the parties. So what happens except for the parties? ‘

Unsatisfied with his answer, Judge Bhattarai repeated another question, “Who is a member as per clause (2)?”
Advocate Pokharel replied to the Member of the House of Representatives. Unsatisfied, the chief justice asked for more clarification. JBR said, ‘Still clear! In (2), in support of two or more parties, it is a member given by the parties. (5) Are the members of the House of Representatives not? (2) There is a provision that only a member trusted by the party can become the Prime Minister. The member you have called a member is a member, there can be no Prime Minister outside the House of Representatives. But, who is a member as per clause (2)? ‘

In reply, Pokharel said that there was no justification in the constitution for claiming the post of Prime Minister as a member of the House of Representatives from a political party as in clause (2). He explained that the “basis for obtaining a vote of confidence” in clause (5) was the obligation to provide additional grounds. ‘(5) is said to belong to two or more parties. But, more than that, it is the basis. There are more words here than clause (2), ‘he argued.
He said the president had done wrong by not giving the House of Representatives the right to check votes. He claimed that 146 people present in the court had confirmed that. After appearing146 in courts, the point came that now the court should certify. Is this clause (5) justified? Is it constitutional to decide that it has reached 146? ‘

In response, Pokharel reiterated that the president was wrong as those who supported Deuba came to court and said that there should be a constitutional interpretation of Article 5. He also said that Prime Minister Oli had a constitutional and moral obligation. Immediately, Chief Justice JBR asked, “Both sides have a constitutional obligation and morality.” There is chaos here, within 146. ‘ Pokharel said that “especially those who show the way” have more responsibility.

Senior Advocate Upendra Keshari Neupane said that it was unconstitutional for the Prime Minister to become the Prime Minister from (1) to (3) without resigning. He also said that despite the party system, the independence of the parliamentarians was also accepted by this system. ‘Clause (2) is to be claimed by the political party and clause (5) by the members of the House of Representatives. It is a multi-party system, but MPs do not have personal freedom, do they? ‘He said. He argued that Article (5) spoke about the situation where a member of a party within the House of Representatives can make a claim.
Chief Justice JBR asked senior advocate Neupane, “No matter how many dissolution cases have been decided by the Supreme Court so far, it cannot be dissolved as long as there is an alternative government, isn’t it?”

The same is true of 11 Phagun. Is this alternative now another government in the alternative of the CPN or is it now looking for another government with members from within the UML? ‘
Another senior advocate, Shyam Kharel, said that the president had violated the constitution by not appointing anyone as the prime minister. He Stating that “president had been relieved of his duties, president has deviated.. He has been relieved of his duties. ‘

Deuba should be ordered to appoint the prime minister

A counter-debate has also started on Sunday. Senior Advocate Raman Shrestha started the debate. As soon as the debate on the Speaker’s side ended on Sunday, the petitioner’s side also started a counter-debate.
He said, “Whenever the party leader fails, but does not resign, the party leader does not leave behind, the chairman does not leave either.” He added, “The prime minister put a gun to the president’s shoulder and fired.”
He argued that all the 146 MPs, along with the five who signed the writ petition, were also part of the issue as they sat on the date as petitioners.

He claimed that the Supreme Court has the right to appoint Deuba as the Prime Minister.

Four amicus curiae will give their opinion within two hours after the answer debate is over.