”This government is different from the government that is formed under regular circumstances. I was not appointed as Prime Minister to be in a permanent government.”
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.
Prime Minister Sushila Karki has submitted a written response to the Supreme Court, claiming that she is the Prime Minister in accordance with the constitution. On behalf of the Prime Minister and the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers, Law Secretary Phadindra Gautam has submitted a written response to the Supreme Court in the same vein.
Both written replies claim that the Karki government, which was appointed as the Prime Minister on 27 Bhadra, is different from the government that is regularly formed. In the written reply, it is argued that the dissolution of the House of Representatives was not wrong, defending the government formed under Karki's leadership. The reply claims that stopping it when the government has already moved forward with the election process is like inviting another rebellion and danger.
'The final decision-maker is the sovereign people. Elections are a direct method for the people to exercise their inherent sovereignty and state power,' the written reply states, 'It can be expected that the new House of Representatives will provide a stable government and stability. The fact that all major political parties and new parties have registered with the Election Commission for the upcoming elections makes it clear that the country is moving forward with the elections.'
Karki said that the situation of civil rebellion was created because the then House of Representatives failed to form a government that is responsible to the citizens. The response claims that the House of Representatives had to be dissolved as it was not possible to continue such an old mandate.
‘This dissolution paves the way for a new mandate and public opinion to be replaced by a new one. The dissolution of the House of Representatives does not mean that the House of Representatives will never be formed,’ the response states, ‘Since the purpose of the election to the House of Representatives is not only to form the House of Representatives but also to form a legal mechanism to form a government to govern for the next five years and to hold that government accountable, it does not seem necessary to issue an order to restore the dissolution of the House of Representatives, which was carried out in accordance with the wishes of the citizens to pave the way for a new public opinion, as claimed by the writ petitioner.’
The response states that the House of Representatives should be dissolved and all the writs filed against the government should be dismissed. ‘In the context of the failure to form a government with good governance at that time and the problem being in the government and the House of Representatives, both institutions were rejected by the citizens, going for a fresh mandate would be a reasonable and democratic solution,’ the written reply said. ‘Stopping it when the government has already moved forward with the election process is like inviting another rebellion and danger.’
Karki has also claimed in the written reply that he is the Prime Minister in accordance with Article 61(4) of the Constitution of Nepal. ‘This government is different from the government formed under regular circumstances. I was not appointed as the Prime Minister to be in an uninterrupted government,’ Karki’s written reply said. ‘When I was appointed as the Prime Minister by the President, the main responsibility was given to hold the election of the House of Representatives within six months. The House of Representatives has been dissolved; the election date has also been announced on Falgun 21, and political parties and state bodies have been fully active in holding the election.’
Karki has also claimed in the Supreme Court that the government is creating a political environment for the election by holding talks, discussions and understandings with all political parties and stakeholders.
Karki has claimed in her written response that she is fully committed to the democratic transfer of state power after the formation of an elected House of Representatives based on the will of the citizens through peaceful elections in a free, fair and fearless environment.
If obstacles are created to this government's work, it will be difficult to hold the House of Representatives elections on time and the country will be headed towards further uncertainty, the written response has claimed.
