KATHMANDU: The issue relating to the appointment of justice Tej Bahadur KC and justice Bam Kumar Shrestha in the Constitutional Bench has been hotly debated in the Supreme Court during Sunday’s hearing on the writ petitions related to the dissolution of the House of Representatives (HoR).

During the initial hearing in the writ petitions demanding the revoke of the decision of dissolution of HoR and also demanding to make Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba the Prime Minister, the petitioners’ advocates have insisted that justice duo Shrestha and KC should not sit in the bench.

Advocate Govinda Bandi argued that it was not appropriate for Judge Shrestha to sit in the bench as his presence would attract the restrictions relating to the conflict of interests of the justices.

“Justice Shrestha and KC should vacate the bench as their presence is objectionable as per the provisions relating to the conflict of interest,” advocate Bandi said.

He alleged that justice Shrestha was responsible for the split of the erstwhile ruling Nepal Communist Party.

Senior advocate Mahadev Yadav also insisted the justices with the conflict of interest in the case should vacate the seat on the Bench.

In response, Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana stated that the advocates should not link the judges with specific cases and should trust in the impartiality of the court.