Nepali Congress lawmakers have filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court against the dissolution of the House of Representatives. The Congress lawmakers argue that the dissolution of the House of Representatives and the appointment of Sushila Karki as Prime Minister are against the constitution and national interest.

According to Supreme Court spokesperson Arjun Prasad Koirala, the writ petition filed by Congress lawmakers against the dissolution of the House of Representatives and the appointment of Prime Minister Sushila Karki is in the pre-registration stage. The writ petition will likely be registered on Monday.

The writ petition was filed by the Chief Whip of the Nepali Congress in the dissolved House of Representatives, Shyam Kumar Ghimire, Whip Sushila Thing, and MPs Asha BK, Deepak Khadka, Sita Kumari Rana, Nagina Yadav, Shanti BK, and Javeda Khatun Jaga. They have named the President and the Office of the President, Prime Minister Sushila Karki, the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers, the Election Commission, Speaker Devraj Ghimire, and the Parliament Secretariat as respondents in the writ petition.

The Congress argues that the President's action in appointing Karki as Prime Minister while the House of Representatives is still in session is unconstitutional. 'It is clear from the beginning that the decision of the Honorable President to appoint the respondent Sushila Karki as the Prime Minister while the House of Representatives was still alive and to dissolve the House of Representatives based on the recommendation to dissolve the House of Representatives after her appointment and the related activities are unconstitutional,' the Congress has thus questioned the President's actions.

The Congress's writ petition also states that President Poudel acted unconstitutionally in calling for the formation of a new government from the House of Representatives after the resignation of the then Prime Minister. The Congress's writ petition filed in the Supreme Court alleges that the President has not fulfilled his constitutional duty. The role of Army Chief Ashok Sigdel in the formation of the government has also been mentioned in the writ petition filed by the Congress in the Supreme Court.

'After the then Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli resigned from his post on Bhadra 24, 2082 BS, the only constitutional option was for the Honorable President to proceed with the process of forming a new government in accordance with Article 76 of the Constitution of Nepal. When no party has a majority in the Parliament, the Honorable President should have called on the party that can prove a majority in the House of Representatives with the support of two or more parties to proceed with the process of appointing the Prime Minister, but he did not do so,' the Congress has said. 'Although the Constitution clearly states that it is the constitutional duty of the Honorable President to proceed with the process of forming the government in accordance with the same provision, the Constitution did not give the responsibility for forming the government to the Chief of Army Staff of the Nepal Army, who did not proceed with the process in accordance with the Constitution, and a series of talks and discussions were held with the Chief of Army Staff of the Nepal Army for the purpose of forming the government between persons not recognized by the law and the Constitution for the purpose of forming the government.'

The Congress's writ petition states that the appointment of Karki as the Prime Minister is a direct violation of the Constitution of Nepal.  

The Congress's writ petition argues that the formation of a government led by Karki is against the Constitution and that he cannot exercise the powers granted to the government by the Constitution.

The government was formed under the leadership of former Chief Justice Karki in the aftermath of the Gen-G movement on Bhadra 23 and 24.  In the writ filed by the Congress MP, the formation of a government led by Karki is described as a 'government takeover'.  'The act of taking over the governance of Nepal by an individual or his group based solely on the events created in the name of the movement, which is against the constitutional order, cannot be said to be in the national interest .

Similarly, Article 75 (1) has granted the executive power of Nepal to the Council of Ministers in accordance with this Constitution and the law, while Article 75 (2) states that the Council of Ministers shall be responsible for the general direction, control and operation of the governance of Nepal subject to this Constitution and federal laws. The writ petition states, 'The term "Council of Ministers" in the said article refers to the Prime Minister appointed from among the members of the House of Representatives who can secure a majority in accordance with the Constitution and the Council of Ministers led by him. Therefore, the Council of Ministers appointed in violation of the national interest and the Constitution does not have the right to exercise the sovereignty and state power of the country. The use, utilization and misuse of state power and sovereignty by him in the name of the Prime Minister is contrary to constitutional validity and democratic culture and practice.'

The Congress has argued that it is constitutional to maintain or continue the House of Representatives, which has a remaining term as prescribed by the Constitution, as long as the constitutional option of forming a government remains. "As the judicial justification for dissolving the House of Representatives and seeking a new mandate, which is contrary to the terms and conditions set by the constitution, under the pretext that elections are a democratic process, has not been proven, the unconstitutional actions should be annulled," the writ petition states.

The Congress also argues that it is clear from the statement made by the President during the appointment of the Prime Minister that the government was formed in violation of the constitution. When the President formed the government under Karki's leadership, he issued a statement saying, "...I sincerely appeal to all parties to make good use of the opportunity to please the people and to conduct the upcoming elections on Falgun 21 by taking care of themselves."

The Nepali Congress has mentioned this issue and claimed before the Supreme Court, 'It is clear from the statement made by the Honorable President that the Honorable President has been forced to appoint her (Sushila Karki) as the Prime Minister in an unconstitutional manner and that a situation has been created for the dissolution of the House of Representatives.'

The Congress argues that the act of unconstitutionally appointing a former Chief Justice, who is not a member of the House of Representatives, as the Prime Minister by overthrowing the popularly elected KP Oli-led government is against the principles of limited government, rule of law, people's representative government and people's participation, and constitutional morality that Nepal has been following.

The Congress has reminded the Supreme Court that Article 132 (2) of the Constitution of Nepal states that the Chief Justice and judges of the Supreme Court are not eligible for appointment to any government position. The Nepali Congress has said, 'Shri Sushila Karki, who was appointed as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on Ashar 27, 2073 BS and retired on Jestha 24, 2074 BS, and Shri Sushila Karki, who was appointed as the Prime Minister of Nepal on Bhadra 27, 2082 BS, are not separate persons but one and the same person.' The Nepali Congress has clarified that Article 132 (2) of the Constitution of Nepal has been made so that the Chief Justice and judges can work without being influenced by anyone. Thus, challenging the clear provision in the Constitution, the Nepali Congress has demanded that the appointment of a former Chief Justice as Prime Minister be annulled.