KATHMANDU – Hearing in the constitutional bench over the case registered by 146 parliamentarians including of the ruling CPN (UML) has begun. Advocates Khamba Bahadur Khati and Govinda Bandi on the behalf of the writ petitioners pleaded today.
Advocate Khati said, “What will be the main basis for the formation a government asking to appoint Nepali Congress lawmaker Sher Bahadur Deuba as the Prime Minister in course of submitting signature of 149 lawmakers to the President.”
He argued that it will not be legal to dissolve parliament even after there was possibility of alternative government.
Khati demanded mandamus to appoint Deuba to the post of the Prime Minister as per Article 76 (5) of the Constitution.
“Reaching at the office of the President by top leaders with the signatures of 149 lawmakers is the big proof. How can a Prime Minister, who lost the vote of confidence as per the Article 76 (3), be the Prime Minister as per Article 76 (5)”, he argued.
Saying the government formed under Article 75 (5) could only recommend for parliament dissolution, Khati said the HoR dissolution was also unconstitutional.
In course of the hearing, Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher JB Rana questioned whether the process of Article 76 (4) should be fulfilled or not to go for Article 76 (5). Similarly, advocate Bandi demanded the reinstatement of Parliament for the protection of the Constitution, saying the President and the Prime Minister are seen violating the Constitution.
Meanwhile, arguing in the constitutional bench, senior advocate Mahadev Yadav said that support of party was not necessary to a member of the House of Representatives to become Prime Minister as per Article 76 (5) of the Constitution.
He opined, “It is said that the support for the appointment of the prime minister as per the Article 76 (5) means the support of HoR members not the political parties.”
As per the Article 76 (5), the149 people who supported Sher Bahadur Deuba for the appointment to the post of the prime minister are HoR members, he added. Yadav argued that not appointing Deuba, submitting his claim along with signature of 149 lawmakers, was unconstitutional.
