When the party in power, Civil Immunity, withdrew its support, the Federal Parliament Secretariat, which had to negotiate the constitutional process and implement the provision, stood in the defense of the government in the dispute regarding the need for a vote of confidence in Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli.

In the written reply sent to the Supreme Court in the case against the Prime Minister, the Parliament Secretariat has sent a written reply defending the role of the executive rather than the role of the independent and sovereign Parliament. In the reply of the Parliament Secretariat, it is claimed that the Prime Minister has the majority.

Constitutional law experts and former parliamentarians comment that the written answer submitted by the Parliament Secretariat to the Supreme Court defends the executive rather than the role of the sovereign parliament. Constitutionalist Bhimarjun Acharya comments that according to the provisions of the constitution, the Prime Minister should take a vote of confidence after the party participating in the government does not support it, and if it is not taken, the constitution will be violated.

"According to the constitution, the prime minister cannot sit on the assumption that there is a majority when the party participating in the government has no confidence, a vote of confidence must be taken," says Acharya, "There is no condition or facility in this." A party that is not participating in the government can withdraw its support, even if it does not take a vote of confidence.

Senior advocate Laxmanlal Karn says that the matter of taking a vote of confidence has reached the court and the Prime Minister should decide whether to take it or not. He said that the Parliament Secretariat can provide information about the process of the vote of confidence and the activities done by the Prime Minister in this regard, but they cannot answer that the Prime Minister does not have to take the vote of confidence. "Parliament and the government are supposed to check and balance each other, everyone is independent and dependent on each other," says Karn, "but independent does not mean doing what is given, the parliament led by the speaker is independent, not the shadow of the executive, and you cannot do it just because someone tells you to do it." According to Clause 2 of Article 76 of the Constitution, the joint government means all the participants in the government. It seems that the constitution says that everyone should take a vote of confidence when they leave the government,'' says the official, "If we don't want to get involved in the process of taking a vote of confidence every time, the rules should be amended." Some arrangement can be made to confirm whether the condition or status of the Prime Minister has been lost from another place. Until the

rules are amended, the Prime Minister should take a vote of confidence after the parties participating in the government withdraw their support. "Even if there is only a doubt that the Prime Minister is not in the majority, he should show it by taking a vote of confidence. If someone separates, it will be more forced," he says. In the written reply submitted by Joint Secretary Lakshmi Prasad Gautam, the Prime Minister was defended rather than reminding the Parliament's procedure and constitutional arrangements.

The system of providing support according to sub-section (2) of Article 76 of the Constitution and the constitutional system of returning support under sub-section (2) of Article 100 are interrelated systems. In accordance with sub-section (2) of the said Article 76, only in the case of the supporting party that participated when the government was being formed, the provisions of sub-section (2) of Article 100 will be attracted,'' in the reply of the Parliament Secretariat, it has been said, 'Civil Liberation Party was not the supporting party when the government was formed in accordance with the sub-section (2) of the said Article 76 and since it supported only later, the party withdrawing its support is not required to take a vote of confidence as per sub-section (2) of Article 100, that is, It is mentioned in the written answer that if the party giving the vote of confidence in the House of Representatives does not maintain such confidence in the case that the Prime Minister has received a vote of confidence according to clause (4) of Article 76 of the Constitution, then a motion of no confidence should be submitted as stipulated in clause (4) of Article 100. It has been claimed in the written reply that the Prime Minister does not need to take a vote of confidence as the sub-section (2) of Article 100 of the Constitution clearly states that he is a participating party in the government.

According to the writ petitioner's claim that the support given to the government by Civil Immunity was withdrawn on June 22, the minister who participated in the government from that party is working continuously and no information has been received from the office of the president about the resignation of the minister.

Civil liberties in Parliament are on the opposition bench. In the meeting of the House of Representatives on Wednesday, Gangaram Chaudhary of the said party asked the government a question from the opposition bench. "Is there an agriculture ministry in Singha Darbar or not?" he asked the government as the opposition. Gangaram, who was the leader of the parliamentary party till July 30 and if we look at the decision of the party president Shrestha, even now he has given full support to the government, questioned the government from the opposition bench.