KATHMANDU: Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana has thrown a slew of questions to lawyers pleading Sunday and inquired whether the court could engage in a practice of appointing certain people as Prime Minister based on majority presented by them. “Is it the right course of action for the court to practice such system?” he asked.
During the ongoing hearing of the case related to the dissolution of the House of Representatives (HoR) in the Constitutional Bench Sunday, CJ Rana posed the question to Speaker Agni Sapkota’s lawyer Megh Raj Pokharel.
“There were 146 people present here. It was argued that the court could certify their claim. But, is it better for the court to practice this?” he asked, adding, “Even the reconstituted HoR could not give the government. It was dissolved again. If the government could not be given, what would be the five-year term of the Parliament (fixed term parliament)?”
In response, Advocate Pokharel said, “It is not that the parliament has not been able to form the government. Article 76 (5) of the constitution stipulates for HoR member to be prime minister. The government will be formed accordingly.”
CJ Rana again asked, “Isn’t a HoR member in accordance with Article 76 (5) and (2) of the constitution a member of the party?” Advocate Pokharel argued, “Article 76 (2) of the constitution states the support of two or more parties. Article 5 states that a HoR member must get a majority? If Article 76 (5) and (2) were to be the same then 76(5) would not have been necessary to be included in the constitution. Article 75 (5) was kept to protect the parliament in case the parties fail to do so. ”
The Constitutional Bench comprised of CJ Rana, Senior Justices Deepak Kumar Karki, Meera Khadka, Ishwar Prasad Khatiwada and Dr. Ananda Mohan Bhattarai has till date heard the pleadings from plaintiff’s side, defendant’s side and is hearing arguments from Speaker side Sunday.
Comment