The dispute regarding whether Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli should/should not take a vote of confidence will be decided by the full bench of the Supreme Court. Although the party in the government withdrew its support, the Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered to send it to the full bench while hearing the writ petition which claimed that Prime Minister Oli had violated the constitution without a vote of confidence. The Supreme Court has said that the matter raised by the writ has been sent to a three-member full bench for a serious constitutional interpretation.

It was claimed in the writ that the Prime Minister did not take the vote of confidence as per Article 100, Clause 2 of the Constitution and that he was acting. The Supreme Court had earlier also ordered to get a similar file from the Parliament Secretariat and the President's Office.

It has been claimed in the petition that the Prime Minister did not take the vote of confidence as per Article 100, Clause 2 of the Constitution and that the government is in a temporary state. After the file was not submitted according to the order, the bench of Justices Til Prasad Shrestha and Srikant Poudel ordered additional files on Tuesday. This dispute will now be heard by a full bench of three judges for the final verdict. Earlier, the Supreme Court had set a date for the debate on whether to issue an interim order. But today, before the start of the debate, when the question arose whether to issue an interim order or pronounce the judgment, the judges ordered to send it to the full court and to pronounce the final judgment within seven days after the written answer was registered.  The Supreme Court has again ordered the collection of three files.  

The Supreme Court has ordered that the support letters of the parties submitted when the government was formed on June 31st be obtained from the President's Office. Similarly, the Supreme Court has ordered the withdrawal of the details of the number of votes of the political parties who gave the vote of confidence to the government on July 6 from the Parliament Secretariat. When the Supreme Court gave the vote of confidence to the government on July 6, the decision taken by the Civil Liberation Party and the Janata Samajwadi Party Nepal was also accepted. Now this dispute will be submitted for hearing within seven days after the submission of the written reply of all the opponents.

The debate could not take place

After the court was appointed on Tuesday, the legal professionals reached the court number seven on behalf of the writ petitioner Virendra KC. Attorney General Ramesh Badal arrived with a team for the reply on behalf of the Prime Minister in the writ petition. After both parties were ready, advocate Yagyamani Neupane started the debate on behalf of the writ petitioner, saying, 'Today, an interim order should be issued and the KP Sharma Oli government should be declared illegal. He argued that the Prime Minister has violated the provisions of Article 100, Clause 2 of the Constitution. He read out that in the said clause, "If the party represented by the Prime Minister splits or if the party participating in the government withdraws its support, the Prime Minister shall submit a proposal to the House of Representatives for a vote of confidence within thirty days". After that, Judge Til Prasad Shrestha asked a question from the bench saying, "What is the purpose of the full hearing after the interim order is issued?" Then Attorney General Badal got up and suggested that it would be appropriate to hold the final hearing now, saying that some details have not come yet and without looking at them, it is not possible to come to a conclusion. Then the judge and legal professionals agreed on that. The writ petitioners requested the bench to fix the date of the next hearing. The judge said that the final hearing will be ordered within seven days after the submission of the written answer.

will now be the final debate on the fixed rate . After the debate, the Supreme Court will decide whether the government is temporary or not. If the Supreme Court issues a writ, it will be deemed that the Prime Minister has not taken the vote of confidence, and if the writ is dismissed, a new constitutional interpretation will be made. When the Prime Minister is not in the minority, even if the party in the government withdraws its support, the constitutional practice does not require a vote of confidence.

Parliament Secretariat's written answer 'The Prime Minister does not need to take a vote of confidence'

Parliament Secretariat has submitted a written answer to the Supreme Court and demanded the cancellation of the writ .

Since the Parliament Secretariat has submitted a written answer, now the answer is yet to come from the Prime Minister's Office, the President's Office, etc. . What kind of constitutional and legal rights of the petitioner have been violated by the actions of the Federal Parliament Secretariat regarding the petitioner's claim? Nothing has been mentioned in the petition,'' the written reply says, 'The writ petition is prima facie dismissed as the grounds and reasons for forming the opposition have not been disclosed.' It is mentioned in the written answer that it should be a direct participation in the government.

The act of supporting the government has been made in response to the claim that it was supported by the party without participating in the government.

It is mentioned in the answer that a party may give a vote of confidence to the government without even participating in the government and without giving a letter or information that it supports the government. "Looking at the purpose of clause (2) of Article 100 of the Constitution, it seems that this provision is attracted only in the context of the party participating in the government". Regarding the party that supports the government or gives a vote of confidence without participating in the government, the provision of the said sub-section (2) does not seem to be attracted, it is said in the written answer, "Participating in the government and supporting the government are separate matters". In the writ petitioner's claim that the Civil Liberation Party withdrew its support to the government on 22 June, the minister who participated in the government from that party has been working continuously and no information has been received from the office of the president about the resignation of the minister.