Three interim orders have been issued out of four writ petitions filed in the Supreme Court since the controversy over the formation of the Madhesh Province government began. The Supreme Court had issued the interim order by combining two public interest writ petitions filed seeking the annulment of the appointment of Chief Minister Saroj Kumar Yadav.

An interim order has also been issued on separate writ petitions filed by 74 MPs against the appointment of the Chief Minister and by five outgoing MPs against the Speaker's decision to remove him from office. 

The dispute that began after UML parliamentary party leader Saroj Kumar Yadav was appointed as the Chief Minister in his capacity as the leader of the largest party in the province in accordance with Article 168 (3) of the Constitution has reached the Supreme Court. The then provincial chief Sumitra Subedi Bhandari, who appointed Yadav as the Chief Minister and administered the oath at a hotel in Bardibas, has since been relieved of her post. 74 MPs, excluding UML, had filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court, calling the process of appointing the Chief Minister unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court issued an interim order on the writ petitions filed by the MPs on Tuesday. The Supreme Court had earlier issued an interim order restraining Chief Minister Yadav from carrying out any work of far-reaching importance in a public concern writ petition filed against the appointment of the Chief Minister. A bench of Justices Nahakul Subedi and Sunil Kumar Pokharel also issued such an order on Tuesday. The bench has also ordered a full hearing of this writ along with another writ on 11 Mangs.

The order states that the then Chief Minister resigned while the process of obtaining a vote of confidence under Article 168 (4) of the Constitution had not been completed and that the majority of the members of the Assembly had applied to form a coalition government under Article 2, which required a resolution. ‘It is seen that the issue of whether or not the Chief Minister can be appointed under Article 3 without taking any decision on the said application is of a nature to be resolved at the time of the final decision,’ the order states.

The Supreme Court, in its order, has asked that no decision with a policy-level and long-term impact be taken by the Council of Ministers and the process of obtaining a vote of confidence under Article 168 (4) of the Constitution be taken until the final decision on the petition is made. During the hearing, the bench debated whether the provincial chief can appoint a chief minister as per Article 168, Clause 2, in the event of the resignation of the chief minister, as per Clause 3, whether the process of appointing and taking oath of the chief minister should be held in the provincial assembly or outside, and whether the appointment of the chief minister took place on November 23 or 24. 

Most of the legal practitioners on the petitioner side had argued that the letter of appointment on November 23 was illegal. Legal practitioners on behalf of Chief Minister Yadav had demanded that a final hearing be held at a specific time.