Senior advocate Mahesh Nepal has argued that Constitution had not allowed activities that are against party discipline. He contended it while pleading in favour of the dissolution of House of Representatives (HoR) at the constitutional bench comprising Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher JB Rana and senior justices Dipak Kumar Karki, Mira Khadka, Ishwor Prasad Khatiwada, and Dr Ananda Mohan Bhattarai.
“Article 76 (5) of the constitution has mentioned about party system,” he said, adding, “Suppose a new government is formed with the support of another party candidate, how long does it run? If the party discipline is not maintained, action is taken.” Nepal further asserted that President, as the guardian of the Constitution, exercised her discretionary powers in line with Article 76 (5) of the constitution.
Similarly, advocate Parshuram Koirala said Oli’s claim for Prime Minister as per Article 76 (5) is appropriate. It was constitutional to claim the prime ministerial post when he had the majority of lawmakers together. “PM Oli had 121 lawmakers where 32 others from JSP supported him, so he claimed PM’s post.”
CJ Rana asked Koirala why PM Oli did not step down from the post. In response, Koirala said it was constitutional on part of PM to make the claim.
Another legal practitioner Subash Acharya argued that the constitution had not envisioned a party-les system. The alternative of 76 (5) was adopted after the failure of Article 76 (3), he added.
Likewise, senior advocates Tanka Dulal and Rabi Narayan Khanal also argued that the whip was implementable in the parliamentary system and PM’s claim was constitutional.
With this, the pleading in favour of the Prime Minister was over on Thursday. Now, only one and half hour is left for the defendants to plead.
This will be following by pleading on behalf of the Speaker.
READ ALSO:
