Oli's response is that appointing Sushila Karki without forming a government as per Article 76 of the Constitution is a direct violation of the Constitution.
We use Google Cloud Translation Services. Google requires we provide the following disclaimer relating to use of this service:
This service may contain translations powered by Google. Google disclaims all warranties related to the translations, expressed or implied, including any warranties of accuracy, reliability, and any implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and noninfringement.
In his response to the court, then Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli has claimed that the dissolution of the House of Representatives is unconstitutional. He has submitted a written response to the Supreme Court in response to the writ petition against the dissolution of the House of Representatives, claiming that it is unconstitutional.
Submitting a written response to 16 writ petitions including those filed by Yubaraj Safal, Maqbul Mia and Sher Bahadur Rokaya, Oli has demanded that the House of Representatives be dissolved on Wednesday.
Oli himself had recommended the dissolution of the House of Representatives in Poush 2077 and Jestha 2078. At that time, Oli had claimed that the Prime Minister would have prerogatives in parliamentary practice. He had claimed that such practice would take place not only in Nepal but also internationally. The then Attorney General Ramesh Badal had given a similar response while defending Oli.
Oli's response is that appointing Sushila Karki without forming a government as per Article 76 of the Constitution is a clear violation of the Constitution.
The phrase 'On the recommendation of the Prime Minister in the appointment of Prime Minister Sushila Karki is itself factually incorrect.' "I was the acting Prime Minister of Nepal on that day," Oli said in response, "I did not and have not given any recommendation or consent to appoint Sushila Karki. The current government is unconstitutional as Article 132 (2) of the Constitution provides that the Chief Justice or any judge of the Supreme Court cannot be appointed to any other government position. ’
The Office of the President, Sheetal Niwas, stated that Karki was appointed with the recommendation and consent of the then Prime Minister on Bhadra 27. In a statement regarding the appointment of the Prime Minister, the Office of the President said, '... In his capacity as the President, based on the recommendation and consent of the Prime Minister, in accordance with the constitutional provision entrusted to the President by the Constitution of Nepal, Mr. Sushila Karki, Morang, has been appointed as the Prime Minister of the Interim Government of Nepal, with the aim of holding another election to the House of Representatives within 6 (six) months. '
Oli's reply states that the dissolution of the House of Representatives by Prime Minister Karki after his swearing-in on Bhadra 10 is also against the constitution.
‘The sequence of events has confirmed that Sushila Karki and the members of the cabinet have committed visible and invisible acts to seize state power by creating anarchy while the sovereignty and state power of Nepal reside in the Nepali people and are exercised in accordance with the constitution,’ Oli said in a written reply. ‘I had resigned with the aim of forming a new government by advancing the constitutional process after the unusual situation arose on Bhadra 24.’
