Speaker Devraj Ghimire has responded to the Supreme Court, saying the dissolution of the House of Representatives is unconstitutional.

A written response was sought from the Speaker, who was made the respondent in 6 out of 17 writ petitions filed in the Supreme Court regarding the dissolution of the House of Representatives, Sushila Karki's appointment as Prime Minister. The Speaker has sent a written response to the Supreme Court through the Attorney General.

The Speaker's response is that the decision to dissolve the Parliament made by President Ram Chandra Poudel on the recommendation of Prime Minister Karki is unconstitutional. 'In the context of the dissolution of the Parliament made by the President on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, the appointment of Prime Minister Sushila Karki is itself unconstitutional, so the recommendation to dissolve the House of Representatives made by her is also automatically invalid. The Constitution of Nepal cannot give legal recognition to any act done by a person who has reached office unconstitutionally,' the Speaker replied.

The Speaker reminded the provision that the Prime Minister can be appointed only as provided in Article 76 of the Constitution of Nepal. 'Looking at the overall structure of clauses (1), (2), (3), and (5) of Article 76 of the Constitution, one after another process for the appointment of the Prime Minister is being implemented within the House of Representatives in practice and if a situation arises where the Prime Minister cannot be appointed or a vote of confidence cannot be obtained, it seems that there is a constitutional provision for the dissolution of the House of Representatives on the recommendation of the then-incumbent Prime Minister, who is a member of the House of Representatives, only in such a compelling situation, as per clause (7) of Article 76,' the Speaker said. 'On the other hand, if the President has to do other work in a situation other than clause (7) of Article 76, he can do it only on the recommendation of the Council of Ministers as per clause (2) of Article 66, but that has not been followed. Therefore, both the recommendation made as the first decision of the unconstitutional Prime Minister and the dissolution of Parliament and the announcement of the election date based on it are unconstitutional and are therefore unenforceable.'

Speaker Ghimire has expressed support for the demand that a mandate for the restoration of Parliament be issued as demanded by the writ petitioners. The Speaker has also criticized the principle adopted when former Chief Justice Karki was appointed as the Prime Minister outside the constitution.

'The act of appointing the Prime Minister in an unconstitutional manner and dissolving the Parliament has also been linked to the principle of necessity. The principle of necessity is a principle that is legally used only in extremely extreme and unavoidable circumstances, where the operation of the state is impossible and no other legal options are available. There are some legal limitations even when using this principle,' the Speaker said, 'Although there is ample possibility that another government could be sought from the House of Representatives if there is a need to facilitate the operation of the state, the recommendation to dissolve the House of Representatives by forming a government in an unconstitutional manner and dissolving the House of Representatives based on that is against the constitution.'

Speaker Ghimire argues that the act of appointing the Prime Minister and dissolving the Parliament by President Poudel on the recommendation of Prime Minister Karki cannot be given legal validity. 'According to the principles established in constitutional jurisprudence, if any act is manifestly against the constitution, such act is considered prima facie invalid. This decision made by the President cannot be given legal validity in any context,' the Speaker's written reply states, 'Ignoring the obligation to promote national unity and uphold the constitution, misinterpreting the constitution from a political perspective and violating the constitutional process is not only legally inconsistent, but also a violation of the basic structure of a democratic state.'

The Speaker's written reply states that since the work done by a government formed in an unconstitutional manner is illegal, the work done by the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers is automatically liable to be nullified. 'Therefore, for the reasons mentioned above, the issues raised by the writ petitioner are appropriate, so let the writ be issued,' the Speaker demands.

Speaker Ghimire also recalled the decision of the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court on a writ petition filed against the President's order to remove obstacles to appointing former Chief Justice and Chairman of the Interim Council of Ministers Khilraj Regmi as the Chairman of the Interim Council of Ministers. Sushila Karki was also a member of the Constitutional Bench.

'Judge Sushila Karki herself and the then Chief Justice Kalyan Shrestha had expressed a different opinion that the act, which was done as a political necessity, was unconstitutional, contrary to constitutionalism, separation of powers, as well as being dangerous for healthy constitutional development and undesirable in the process of implementing the constitutional system, and that such an act should not be repeated in any hand and that everyone should be aware of it, and that a copy of the order would be sent to all the opposition parties, including the Honorable President,' the Speaker said. 'It seems constitutionally, legally and morally wrong for Sushila Karki to lead the interim cabinet while ignoring the issue that she herself has already made unconstitutional and wrong through her own judgment.'