Madhesh Province has been in turmoil since Chief Minister Jitendra Sonal resigned and Province Chief Sumitra Subedi Bhandari, without attempting to form an alternative government, appointed Saroj Yadav as Chief Minister in a hotel outside Janakpur under Article 168(3) and administered the oath.

This dispute has reached the Supreme Court through Madhesh Province. After she made Yadav the Chief Minister at a hotel in Bardibas, who was on her way to Kathmandu for treatment, there has been widespread opposition. This act is being criticized as an unconstitutional and anarchic practice. Durga Dulal had an interview with Dipendra Jha, an advocate and constitutional law expert who has been the Chief Advocate of Madhesh Province, on this issue:

Madhesh Province is currently in controversy after Madhesh Province Chief Sumitra Subedi Bhandari appointed Saroj Yadav as the Chief Minister at a hotel. Questions are being raised from all sides about this hasty step taken by the Province Chief. How do you take it, being a former Chief Advocate?

This has become an unconstitutional practice. The way the Province Chief did it at a certain hotel instead of at the Provincial Assembly or in his office is an unconstitutional act. This act is even against the precedent of the Supreme Court. The precedent set in the case filed by Hikmat Karki against the provincial chief earlier, and then by Kedar Karki, has been violated. In Karki's case, the bench of Justices Dr. Anand Mohan Bhattarai, Ishwor Prasad Khatiwada and Til Prasad Shrestha clearly said that forming a government should be a practice. But here, it is not a practice, but the work of forming a Chief Minister from a hotel. That is why I believe that it should be corrected.

In recent days, there have been many controversies over government formation in Madhesh Province. When Madhesh Province, which once fought against federalism with the central government, goes beyond its limits and does such a thing, what practice do we follow?

This is also my question. Let's look at the example of the center in the past. We did not protest against Sushila Karki saying that it was an unconstitutional practice when the discussions were held at the army headquarters after the Gen-G movement. That was an unconstitutional practice, that's why they said that even after the President's Office was burned, the same should be done, and that's what happened. What we raised at that time is what happened now. After the President's Office was burned, why was the oath taken even though it was burning? Similarly, the same is true in the case of Madhesh Province. The place to form the government or appoint the Chief Minister is not a hotel in some place. It is the Provincial Assembly or the office of the Provincial Chief.

The Chief Minister, who was appointed with the claim of getting a vote of confidence from the Parliament, resigned after failing to get a vote of confidence. And according to Article 168(3), the claim that the government was formed in the process of another clause is the one of the appointees, right?

This could not have happened. There is a cycle of government formation. It could not have been completed. If the cycle had been completed, one could have agreed with this argument. You can go to 3 through clauses 1, 2, and so on. But you cannot go to another process without completing this and looking at other possibilities. In the case of Kedar Karki (former Chief Minister of Koshi Province), the government had already gone to Article 168(5). That is why it was interpreted. Here, it has not reached Article 5.

The government, which had already gone to Article 168(5), did not return to 168(2). The Supreme Court said in that case that if there is a possibility of 168(2), it has been explained that it can be used not only once, but also repeatedly. In the case of Jitendra Sonal, it was not allowed to use it.