King Birendra had announced to dissolve the House of Representatives on the recommendation of Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala and hold mid-term elections on 27th October 2051. But a writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court with the demand that the King's declaration should be revoked.

The main demand of the writ petition was the cancellation of the dissolution of the House of Representatives by Prime Minister Koirala as unconstitutional. Exactly 31 years and 12 days ago today, the Supreme Court started the hearing on the demand to revive the House of Representatives.

The hearing of the writ petition was started on August 7, 2051 in an 11-member special bench with the then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Vishwanath Prasad Upadhyay. A writ was registered on July 17, 2051, demanding the restoration of the House of Representatives.

Along with Vishwanath, there were Surendra Prasad Singh, Hargobind Singh Pradhan, Rudra Bahadur Singh, Om Bhakta Shrestha, Mohan Prasad Sharma, Keshav Prasad Upadhyay, Laxman Prasad Aryal, Kedarnath Upadhyay, Krishnajung Rayamazhi and Gobind Bahadur Shrestha. The hearing was started by deploying a large number of police in the Supreme Court. Police were deployed as a large crowd tried to enter the court . 

Chief Justice Vishwanath from Ijalas asked the writ petitioner lawyers to prepare for arguments within three days . On behalf of the writ petitioner, he asked him to plead in his favor within three days . Arguing in favor of the writ, legal expert Sushila Karki said that Prime Minister Koirala had dissolved the House of Representatives.

After Koirala was surrounded by scandals such as the Tanakpur Agreement, the Dhamija scandal under the Royal Nepal Air Service, and the entry of the Indian police into Baneshwar, Karki argued that the House of Representatives was dissolved because the Parliament would trouble her. She said that since Prime Minister Koirala felt that the Parliament did not help her in Tanakpur, she held a grudge against the Parliament. 

In the interim, Law Minister and Advocate Nilambar Acharya said that the Constitution of 2047 envisages constitutional supremacy and not prime ministerial supremacy. During the debate, he said, "Article 4 of the Constitution does not give the Prime Minister the right to recommend the dissolution of the House of Representatives at any time." He argued that after the resignation of the Prime Minister, another Prime Minister should be found.

Advocate Yuvraj Sangraula argued in favor of the writ saying that the resignation of the Prime Minister means giving up the rights and privileges given by the post. He pointed to the internal conflict within the Congress and said, "The Prime Minister can only decide on the approval of his party." He also reminded that there is no constitution of Congress parliamentary party. Advocates Sarvagyaratna Tuladhar, Dr. Surya Dhungel and Shrahari Aryal denied that the recommendation made by the Prime Minister was unconstitutional. During the

debate, the 'final dispute' was whether the work done by Shri 5 can be revoked or not. Although the debate lasted until 5 pm, the time ran out when advocate Dhungel spoke. In the

debate, the judges questioned the legal experts about what the King would do with the Prime Minister's safari. In that case, which was viewed with great importance in the judicial history of Nepal at that time, a situation was created where many provisions mentioned in Articles 31, 36, 53, 42, 88, 112, 113 etc. of the Constitution of 2047 had to be explained.

The founding party of the ruling Congress was in favor of the re-establishment of the House of Representatives, while the left-wing parties, including the main opposition party UML, were protesting on the streets. Therefore, the security system was tightened.

The angry crowd of the general public raised slogans outside the court at 11.30 saying that they were not allowed to enter the court. The debate was stopped at 12.45 due to its impact on Ijalas. For the debate which started again at 2 o'clock, 17 advocates from the side mentioned their names . A large number of advocates were also prepared for the

government. From the side of the writ petitioner, it was seen that even if they could argue in three days, the time would be insufficient. Ganesh Raj Sharma, Shambhu Prasad Gyawali, Krishna Prasad Pant, Advocates Shambhu Thapa and Subas Nemwang were prepared to argue on behalf of the Bar as independent Senior Advocates (Amicus Curiae). After the arguments of the lawyers for and against the writ, it was planned for them to debate. 

Hari Nepal of Nepali Congress and Ganesh Pandit of UML, members of the dissolved House of Representatives, filed the writ petition. Similarly, Durga Subedi of Congress and Lokkrishna Bhattarai of UML also filed a writ. The single bench of Chief Justice Vishwanath had already issued a show cause order to the opposition Prime Minister, Council of Ministers, Election Commission and Constituency Determination Commission. 

Regarding the recommendations made by the Prime Minister on June 26, 2051, after discussing with people related to various fields, the king announced that the next day, the mid-term elections would be held on October 27.