The latest UML writ was registered on Wednesday, and the first hearing has been scheduled for November 17.
What you should know
Eighteen writ petitions have been filed in the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court against the dissolution of the House of Representatives on the recommendation of Prime Minister Sushila Karki and are undergoing hearing.
The latest writ petition of UML was registered on Wednesday and the first hearing has been scheduled for November 17.
These are the 18 writ petitioners
What are the demands in the writs?
After the Supreme Court was burnt down during the protests on August 24, the writ registration was opened from August 28. On the same day that the writ registration was opened, 10 writs were filed in the Supreme Court, saying that the appointment of the Prime Minister and the dissolution of Parliament were against the constitution. The next day, 6 and one more were filed. The UML had filed the writ only on Tuesday. The first hearing of 17 writs was held and a show cause order was issued, seeking written responses.
The Supreme Court is in the process of completing the deadline and collecting written responses. The Constitutional Bench, after conducting the first hearing, had ordered that all parties submit their written responses for hearing. So far, written responses have been submitted by Speaker Devraj Ghimire, the President's Office, the then Police Chief Chandrakuber Khapung, and UML Chairman KP Sharma Oli. Still, written responses from Prime Minister Sushila Karki and others have not been submitted. The Supreme Court has fixed the next hearing for November 22. If written responses have been submitted by all by that date, they will be scheduled, otherwise they will not be scheduled.
Three main demands have been put forward in all the writs. The writ petition claims that the decision of the first President Ram Chandra Poudel to form the government based on the mandate of the Gen-G movement is unconstitutional.
The constitution has Article 76 as the basis for government formation, but it is claimed that Sushila Karki was not appointed as the Prime Minister in accordance with that article. It is demanded that it be annulled since President Poudel formed it according to Article 61 of the constitution.
Similarly, the second demand made in the writ petition is that the decision to dissolve the parliament made by the President on the recommendation of Prime Minister Karki of the interim government should be annulled and the parliament should be restored. The third demand is that the situation after the Gen-G movement should be addressed by the parliament.
The writ petition has made the President's Office, Sheetal Niwas, Prime Minister Karki and the Parliament Secretariat defendants. Similarly, it is claimed that the formation of the government is illegal since the constitution itself prohibits the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from holding any office of profit except for the Human Rights Commission.
The main demand in the writ petition is that the dissolution of the House of Representatives should be annulled by the order of the instigation since it is unconstitutional. The demand for issuing a mandate to restore the parliament and form a government from within the House of Representatives has been made in all the writ petitions.
This is the history of the dissolution of parliament
There have been ten cases in the history of Nepal so far in which the dissolution of parliament has been decided. From 2017 to 2082, various prime ministers had recommended such dissolution. Five of the recommendations were implemented.
The first dissolution on 1 Poush 2017 was implemented, and then the dissolution by Girija Prasad Koirala in 2051 was also implemented. The dissolution by Girija Prasad Koirala in 2055 was also implemented. The dissolution by Sher Bahadur Deuba in 2059 was also implemented, but it was later restored due to the strength of the people's movement.
Similarly, on 15 Jestha 2069, the dissolution of the first Constituent Assembly by Baburam Bhattarai was also implemented. The ninth dissolution took place on 8 Jestha 2078. The then Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli ruled that the dissolution by Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli was unconstitutional and restored it.
Three months after the restoration, Oli recommended dissolution again on 8 Jestha 2078. This dissolution was annulled by a verdict on 28 Asar 2078. But the current dissolution has taken place in a different background than the past ones. In the past, the Prime Minister had dissolved the government, while this time, the Prime Minister Karki of the Interim Council of Ministers recommended dissolution based on the mandate of the Gen-Gs.
What are the alternatives?
The first hearing on 12 Kartik focused on whether an interim order should be issued. The Constitutional Bench ordered a written response to be submitted procedurally.
Since the Supreme Court had to decide this dispute quickly, it could have asked the opponents to respond in writing by setting a time limit, but instead decided to hold a procedural hearing.
Since the election date was set for 21 Falgun and the Election Commission had to prepare for it, the court had demanded a proper solution during the debate so that there would be no obstacles to it, but the court had ordered a final hearing by submitting a written response to be submitted procedurally.
In the past, the hearing of the dissolution of the House of Representatives was also scheduled. This time, after the written response was received, the Supreme Court did not order it to do so from the very beginning, even though it could have done so.
Now, it seems likely that the UML and the other 17 writs will be put together again for the final hearing. It seems that the first presentation of the UML writ was scheduled for November 17 and that a show cause order was issued on that day, ordering all the writs to be put together. After these two writs are joined, it seems that the Supreme Court may hold a final hearing and decide whether the House of Representatives will be restored or not.
