The jurisdiction of the House of Representatives and the National Assembly is determined by the constitution. Rules of procedure for both houses have also been made. However, the perception that stakeholders make public the rights of both houses has occasionally created conflict.

In Nepal's parliamentary history, the National Assembly has been considered a 'ceremonial parliament'. The 2072 constitution envisioned the National Assembly to remain alive even when the House of Representatives is dissolved or there is no election. The 2047 constitution also established the National Assembly as a permanent parliament. But since some of its functions are not clear, the National Assembly is also seen as a place where the House of Representatives provides guidance.

Former MP and senior advocate Radheshyam Adhikari, who has been a member of the National Assembly for a long time and practiced parliament, says that the constitution has given more importance to the House of Representatives. In the absence of a House of Representatives, he argues that the country's annual budget should be presented in the form of an ordinance in the National Assembly, not in the hall of the National Planning Commission. He says, 'The National Assembly is also a place of people's representatives, but the provisions in the constitution and laws need to be changed.'

When the then Prime Minister Manmohan Adhikari dissolved the House of Representatives in 2052 Jestha, the issue of the rights of the National Assembly was given priority . Should the National Assembly meet in the absence of the House of Representatives? In the process of finding an answer to the question of what can and cannot be done in such a situation, Speaker Beni Bahadur Karki had put forward the idea that the National Assembly is not the tail of the House of Representatives . His idea had created a situation of accusations/counter-accusations between the ruling party and the opposition .

The meeting called by Speaker of the House of Representatives Ram Chandra Poudel and Chairman of the National Assembly Beni Bahadur Karki with the participation of former MPs on 2052 Asad 9 to discuss the budget, fair elections, and the National Assembly session when the House of Representatives was dissolved ended in a debate . The organizers of the meeting became angry after the parties expressed different opinions on the rights of the National Assembly . 

When the ruling UML MPs put forward the idea that the National Assembly session was not important in the event of mid-term elections after the dissolution of the House of Representatives, former MPs of the opposition party had opposed it. The opposition MPs argued that the role of the National Assembly has increased even more in the event of the non-existence of the House of Representatives.

Beni Bahadur, who became the Speaker of the National Assembly from the Nepali Congress, was angry after hearing the statements of the ruling party MPs. In response, he said in challenging language, ‘We must prove that the National Assembly is a permanent house.’ According to the constitution and law, the session of the House should be held within 6 months. We must now prove that the National Assembly is not the tail of the House of Representatives.’

The then Deputy Prime Minister and UML General Secretary Madhav Kumar Nepal had said, ‘Do you know how appropriate it is for members of the dissolved Parliament to sit and discuss whether or not to hold a meeting of the National Assembly?’ He had asked whether it was appropriate to hold such a discussion when the dissolution of the House of Representatives was pending in the Supreme Court and urged compliance with the constitution.

Deputy Prime Minister Nepal disagreed with the argument that the opposition MPs should present the budget for the fiscal year 2052/053 to the National Assembly. Nepal was of the opinion that the government’s proposal to present the budget to the National Assembly would be against the spirit of the constitution. After hearing Nepal's statement, National Assembly Speaker Karki had said, 'When talking to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs about the convention, they said that we will not present the bill. I said, I have the bill and I will show it by running it.' He had expressed his determination to run the National Assembly as long as we can, saying that if we hit the other leg before the wound of the dissolution of the House of Representatives heals, democracy will be weakened.

Former MP Ram Sharan Mahat had suggested that the National Assembly was a place to expose the excesses being committed by the government in the absence of the House of Representatives. In the meeting, Speaker Poudel had said that he would inform the King and the Election Commission about the doubts of former opposition party MPs that the elections would not be fair.

Referring to the government's announcement of a mid-term term, former opposition party leader Vasudev Risal expressed his anger in the National Assembly, saying that the parliament was dissolved when he saw the possibility of forming an alternative government from the house. Former MP and RPP General Secretary Pashupati Shumsher Rana had expressed the view that the government should not bring a budget for more than 6 months.

Former MP Nawaraj Subedi had suggested that the government should bring a budget through an ordinance. Former Congress parliamentary party leader Sher Bahadur Deuba had urged the caretaker government not to take any additional responsibility, regardless of whether the court decision restores the parliament or a new government is formed through elections.

In the dissolved parliament, UML Chief Whip Devi Prasad Ojha, former Minister of Finance Mahesh Acharya, National Assembly MP Narahari Acharya, former MP Deep Kumar Upadhyay, and National Assembly member Chandraraj Dhungel had clashed with each other while expressing their views.

Former UML MPs had made statements targeting the Congress, saying that their behavior was different when they were in power and when they were not. Former Congress MPs had said that the UML should not bring a budget that would have long-term effects.