Pleading of amicus curie began on the case relating to the dissolution of House of Representatives (HoR) after the replies on behalf of the petitioners’ side concluded at the Supreme Court today.
The Constitutional Bench comprising Cholendra Shumsher JB Rana and judges Deepak Kumar Karki, Meera Khadka, Ishwar Prasad Khatiwada and Dr Ananda Mohan Bhattarai is conducting the hearing on the case. Representing the amicus curie, senior advocate Raghav Lal Baidya argued that the Prime Minister would be automatically relieved of his post after failing to win a vote of confidence in the parliament.
Senior advocate Baidya, presenting his arguments on behalf of the Nepal Bar Association, said the person serving as the Prime Minister for more than two years could not be re-appointed in accordance with the Article 76 (3) of the Constitution. “The Article is applicable for the Prime Minister appointed recently or if the (new) government could not be formed as per the Article 76 (1) and (2) of the Constitution.
The May 13 appointment of the Prime Minister as the leader of the largest party is questionable, as the Constitution does not allow the person failing to secure a vote of confidence to be re-appointed to the post as per the Article 76(5). The Constitution does not allow the person relieved of the post constitutionally to run again for the Prime Ministerial post.
He was of the opinion that the practice of dissolving the House time and again by the Prime Minister over intra-party feud could not be accepted and the President was also expected to keep this in mind while appointing the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister already losing a majority after the withdrawal of the support by the CPN (Maoist Center) should be replaced by a new face, according to him.
Source: National News Agency Nepal