The Civil Liberties Party participating in the government submitted a letter withdrawing its support to Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli to Speaker Devraj Ghimire on June 22. After that, Speaker Devraj Ghimire went to Prime Minister's residence Baluwatar to meet Oli.

There are four options before the Supreme Court in the dispute whether or not Prime Minister Oli should take a vote of confidence:

• To delay or prolong the case (send it to the constitutional bench or send it to the full bench)
• Take a vote of confidence by issuing an interim order 
• As the government has violated the constitution, the government has ordered the process of government formation. He was interested with the Prime Minister about the vote of confidence. However, the Prime Minister did not give any response about taking the vote of confidence.
• The speaker who came to discuss the process of vote of confidence according to clause 2 of article 100 of the constitution argued that since Prime Minister Oli has formed a government together with Congress and UML, there is no need to take a vote of confidence when the majority is still in place.

Although the Speaker returned after informing the Prime Minister that the support of Naupa had been withdrawn, he was wondering whether the letter for the vote of confidence would come to the Parliament. The Speaker was repeatedly interested in whether the Prime Minister's Office had any correspondence with the General Secretary of the Parliament Secretariat, Padma Prasad Pandey, and the Chief of the House of Representatives Administration Division, Ekram Giri.

According to a senior official of the Parliament Secretariat, has there been any letter from the government to take a vote of confidence? The speaker was interested in that after 30 days of Naupa withdrawing the vote of confidence . However, after the government did not send any letter or go through the process, the Speaker stopped being interested.

This development seems to be in favor of Prime Minister Oli not having to take a vote of confidence. However, the speaker was interested in the vote of confidence as he was in favor of following the constitutional system even if the government is in majority.

The dispute entered the Supreme Court as the Prime Minister focused on settling the dispute within Naupa, which was dissatisfied with the vote of confidence. A single bench of Supreme Court Judge Sunil Kumar Pokharel has issued a show cause order raising four questions on August 6. The Supreme Court has set a date for 11 August (Wednesday) for the second hearing and has called both the opposition government and the writ petitioner for a discussion.

What will happen in the debate on Wednesday ?

A bench of two judges will be formed to hear the case. It will be determined by the round-robin system that the bench of judges will be formed. Judge Sunil Pokharel, who has ordered the first hearing on the writ, will not be in this courtroom. Opposition Prime Minister Oli, Prime Minister and Cabinet Office, Speaker Devaraj Ghimire, Parliament Secretariat and President's Office and the writ petitioners will debate in the bench of two judges.

The bench formed in this way will listen to the arguments and views of the lawyers of the government side and the writ petitioner and will decide whether to issue an interim order or decide on this writ petition. Constitutional law experts and former judges have commented that the Supreme Court may decide on one of four options on Wednesday. In the

hearing, the writ petitioner will get the turn of the debate first. After their argument, the government side will present the basis and reason for not taking the vote of confidence. Also, the government side will answer the writ petition and the four questions raised by the single bench . Attorney General Ramesh Badal has prepared to appear on behalf of the government for the debate.

The Deputy Attorney General's team along with him will defend the government . After the arguments of both sides, the Supreme Court will give the petitioner a short time for counter-argument and pronounce the decision. A former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court commented that the Prime Minister should take a vote of confidence as there is no exception to what is written in the Constitution.

"Clause 2 of Article 100 of the Constitution shows that the party in power should withdraw its support and take a vote of confidence," said the former Chief Justice, "Rather than knowing that the Prime Minister has a majority, it is the Parliament." How to estimate the majority without going to the parliament?'

A former judge of the Supreme Court suggested that there are four options to order after the Supreme Court's hearing on Wednesday. The first option with the Supreme Court seems to lead to delaying or delaying the case . For this, a joint (two-judge) bench may order that a constitutional dispute should be heard by a constitutional bench .

The constitutional bench has not been able to sit for about two months . In the constitutional bench, it has not been formed after June 25 due to the controversy over whether to select judges from the round or by the Chief Justice. In such a case, sending to the said bench means that the case is not heard immediately .

Similarly, another option is to order a file to be sent to a larger full or comprehensive bench. This dispute will not be heard immediately but will be prolonged.

The second option before the Supreme Court is to issue an interim order and take a vote of confidence. During the formation of the government, UML and Congress submitted a majority to the President's office and since they participated in the government after Naupa, it seems that they can issue an interim order by setting a time to take a vote of confidence after withdrawing their support. If this happens, if the government is to continue, Prime Minister Oli will have to submit a proposal for a vote of confidence in the parliament. Time will also be available for this.

This is the third option available to the Supreme Court in this case, since Prime Minister Oli has not followed the provisions of Article 100 (2) of the Constitution, the government has turned into a shambles, to start the process of forming a new government. This demand is also of the writ petitioner .

If the Supreme Court issues an order as per the demand of the writ petitioner, the process of government formation will have to be started . In which, the President will call for the formation of the government. After taking the oath for the prime minister, a vote of confidence must be taken from the parliament within 30 days. In this situation, there is a possibility that Oli will become the Prime Minister from the current coalition. If that happens, he will become the prime minister for the second time from the Congress-UML alliance.

The Supreme Court's final option after Wednesday's hearing is to refuse to issue an interim order or dismiss the writ . As Congress and UML in the government still hold the majority in the House of Representatives, the Supreme Court can pronounce the order to send it for final hearing and reject the interim order, judging that the order cannot be issued as requested by the writ petitioner .

In the proposal presented by the Supreme Court to the President during the formation of the government, it can be argued that the process of taking a vote of confidence is necessary as only a clear majority of both parties is seen. However, Omprakash Aryal, President of the Advocate and Constitutional Law Practitioners Forum, argued that those who had supported the government should take a vote of confidence within 30 days after the withdrawal.

"The constitution clearly says that if there is a coalition government and if one of the parties withdraws, a vote of confidence should be taken," Aryal said, "Since this dispute has reached the Supreme Court, it should be interpreted in such a way that the court will resolve it." During the formation of the government, J-Jas supported them .

Advocate Rajuprasad Chapagai said that if the party participating in the government withdraws its support, the constitution should take a vote of confidence and there is no room for any other explanation. He commented that since the constitution called the party participating in the government, there is no question whether there is a majority or not. He argues that the fact that there is a majority should be seen in the parliament and the prime minister cannot sit on the assumption that he has a majority.

Former Law Minister and Senior Advocate Gobind Bandi said that the matter of majority is a technicality and the vote of confidence should be taken in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. He said that he understood that since the government is not in the minority right now, it does not matter if the vote of confidence is not taken. He argued that the argument was political rather than constitutional and legal.

Oli was convicted twice for violating the constitution, what will happen in the third?

Prime Minister Oli has been accused of violating the constitution twice before by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reinstated the Parliament after canceling the dissolution of the first House of Representatives on 5 January 2077. Similarly, after dissolution again on 7th June 2078, the Supreme Court issued a mandate and restored the parliament. At that time, the Supreme Court had fixed the time when Oli should be removed from the post of Prime Minister and Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba should be appointed.

In the Constitution of Nepal issued in 2072, the Prime Minister was not given the right to dissolve the Parliament, and Oli dissolved it both times citing the privilege of the Prime Minister and international practice. But the Supreme Court refused both times and overturned his decision. The allegation of violating the constitution against Oli, who is the prime minister for the third time, has reached the Supreme Court. The single bench has asked for a written answer and the hearing to be held on Wednesday will decide whether or not the constitution will be violated for the third time. If the Supreme Court passes an order against the Prime Minister, he will become the first Prime Minister to be found guilty of violating the Constitution continuously after the promulgation of the Constitution of Nepal.

Resham and Ranjita controversy raises constitutional questions on Oli

Prime Minister Oli is facing constitutional and legal disputes this time due to a domestic dispute between Naupa's patron Resham Chaudhary and president Ranjita Shrestha . As a result, Ranjita was removed from the leadership of the parliamentary party and Gangaram Chaudhary was given the responsibility. After the chief minister removed the ministers of the party participating in the Sudurpaschim government, Naupa announced that it would leave the Oli-led government as well.

Naupa withdrew the support given to the Oli-led government on June 22 . Lalveer Choudhary, Arun Kumar Choudhary and Ranjitha made a unanimous decision in a meeting chaired by Parliamentary Party Leader Gangaram in Kathmandu on June 21. "Since the party has been supporting the ruling government until now, it has not worked according to the expectations of the government, from today it will withdraw its support from the federal and provincial government of Nepal and sit on the opposition bench," Naupa's letter to the Speaker reads, "The decision to recall Arun Kumar Chaudhary, who is the Minister of State for Tourism, from the government was unanimously passed." In the last week of June, the audio between the then General Administration Minister Rajkumar Gupta, President Ranjita and UML activist mediator Sujan Lama was released in relation to the land of lychee garden in Pokhara. On July 7, the Ranjitasag Authority took a statement regarding the bribe deal on the land of Lichibagaicha. However, after the recent political steps taken by him, the authority has not made public what kind of investigation and prosecution they are doing in the bribery deal.

When the bribe deal controversy was at its height, NAUPA held a national meeting and removed Ranjita and made Resham's father and MP Lalveer Chaudhary the party president . However, the Election Commission decided on July 28 that the party president Ranjita was legitimate.

Ranjitha reversed the decisions made under the leadership of Lalveer and Gangaram after the election commission reinstated her as the president. On July 30, she wrote a letter to the Speaker regarding her vote of support and confidence in the government. "According to the decision of this civil liberation party, the party has withdrawn its support from the government on June 22, 2082. It has been requested that the party will withdraw its support from the government on 22nd June 2082, and that the party has full confidence and support in the current government as per the decision of the party," said Ranjita in the letter written to the speaker.

Ranjita said that the support given to the government was withdrawn due to the pressure of the protector Resham . He says that despite signing the letter of withdrawal of support, MPs other than him have never sat on the bench of the opposition.

'Even after submitting the letter of withdrawal of support on June 22, we were not out of the government until today. Arunji was the Minister of State . After taking the resignation in his pocket and going beyond the decision of the party, he did not leave the government,' she said, 'MPs used to go to the Parliament building and return but did not participate in the parliamentary activities . They did not prefer to be in the opposition. He signed the withdrawal decision from the government under the coercion of Reshamji, but he did not prefer to sit on the opposition bench in Parliament.

Patron Resham said that all the work of the party was entrusted to Ranjita. I am not active in the party now. I have entrusted all the work of the party to Ranjita Shrestha . The Election Commission has also called him the chairman. I have said that a decision should be taken in the interest of Naupa and the people," Resham said, "I have also learned from the government that they are sitting in the opposition as well as the leaders of the parliamentary party. Friends have said that we are not in the government, we are in the opposition. I have heard that they have supported the government again.' Ranjita presented the June 22 decision of withdrawal of support by the