KATHMANDU: As the Supreme Court hearing on the dissolution of parliament continued for the third day Friday, Chief Justice Cholendra Shamsher Rana asked advocate Dinmani Pokhrel, who was debating on behalf of petitioners, to clarify two questions related with the President’s dissolution of parliament at Prime Minister’s recommendation.

Firstly, CJ Rana wanted to know if the Prime Minister does not feel he can muster the confidence of the House and decides not to seek a vote of confidence then where was it that the PM should notify in such case: Was it to the parliament or to the President he should have conveyed his position.

Secondly, CJ Rana hoped Pokharel could clarify the bench where or who should verify the claim and determine the grounds for appointment of a new PM: Parliament or President?

In response, Pokharel said, “The basis for appointment of PM was 149 signatures submitted by claimant. If the President did not believe in that claim then she should have sent it to the parliament. The President does not have the right to confirm which lawmaker is on which side. It is the president’s ‘mala fide’ intention to declare Deuba’s claim invalid by comparing it with another claim submitted by the PM who had declared he did not have support in the parliament.”

Pokharel argued that the president seemed to be subservient to Oli’s desire to take the country to the polls under his own leadership.