Hearing on the writ petition filed against the dissolution of the House of Representatives (HoR) continued today on the 17th day since it began at the Supreme Court.
Advocating on behalf of the government, Deputy Attorney General Padam Prasad Pandey argued that the present Constitution gives the Prime Minister more powers compared to the 1990 Constitution, which was used to dissolve the lower house of parliament. "The 1990 Constitution gave more power to the King, this gives more power to the Prime Minister," he said.
Pandey also said that the present government was elected for a five-year term but was not allowed to work as per the popular mandate, hence the need to go to the people again as per the constitutional provisions.
Likewise, another deputy Attorney General Narayan Poudel said as it is not written in the Constitution that the President shall not dissolve the HoR on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, the present act is legal. "The Prime Minister has already outlined the reasons to dissolve the HoR in his written response, which was due to lack of cooperation within his own party," he said.
The lawyers representing the government are defending the decision to dissolve the house and seek a fresh mandate.
Earlier, government's attorney general Agni Kharel and senior advocate Sushil Pant had also argued that the decision of the Prime Minister to dissolve the HoR was constitutional.
Pleading by the advocates representing the petitioners has already been completed.
The hearing will continue tomorrow before the Constitutional Bench led by Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher JB Rana.
Source: RSS
