A writ petition filed by the Nepali Congress against the dissolution of the House of Representatives has been registered. The Supreme Court has registered the writ petition filed by seven lawmakers, including Congress Chief Whip Shyam Ghimire, and has also scheduled a presentation before the Constitutional Bench.

This is the second writ petition filed by a party against the dissolution of the House of Representatives by Sushila Karki, who became Prime Minister on 27 Bhadra under the power of Gen-G, and the 19th in number. Earlier, 17 writ petitions had been filed by legal practitioners and various individuals out of public concern.

A writ petition was filed on 9 Mangsir by the CPN-UML, the main political party. Only the Congress and UML, which were the ruling partners at the time, have approached the court so far. The other parties represented in the dissolved House of Representatives have not approached the court. They are only focused on preparing for the elections, but the Congress and UML have moved forward with the demand for the restoration of the parliament along with the preparations for the elections scheduled for 21 Falgun.

Before the Gen-G movement on 23 Bhadra, UML Chairman KP Sharma Oli was the Prime Minister and the Congress was the main ruling partner.

Here are the seven points demanded in the writ petition of the Nepali Congress:

a) Since the appointment of Prime Minister Sushila Karki, who was not a member of the House of Representatives unconstitutionally, was not supported by the parliamentary party of any political party, and was appointed in violation of Article 76 and Article 132 (2), is prima facie unconstitutional, I request that a writ of certiorari be issued against her appointment as Prime Minister.

b) The decision of the Honorable President dated Bhadra 27, 2082, appointing Sushila Karki as Prime Minister, the swearing-in ceremony of the Prime Minister and other appointments made on the basis thereof, be annulled by a writ of certiorari. Also, I request that all illegal and unconstitutional acts taken by the opposition after the opposition Prime Minister was appointed, including the expansion of the Council of Ministers, be annulled.

c) The decision to dissolve the House of Representatives made by the Honorable President on the sole recommendation of Prime Minister Sushila Karki on Bhadra 27, 2082, may be revoked by the order of the Prime Minister and may be issued to maintain the status quo as of Bhadra 24, 2082.

d) In the event that the then Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli has resigned from his post, may be issued to the President to initiate the process as per Article 76 of the Constitution for the formation of a new government.

e) May be issued to the Speaker and the Parliament Secretariat to make necessary arrangements for the Speaker of the House of Representatives to convene a meeting of the Parliament.

f) Since the election of the House of Representatives to be held by the unconstitutionally appointed Prime Minister Sushila Karki and the government led by her will also be illegal, may be issued to prohibit all activities related to the election of the House of Representatives after the dissolution of the House of Representatives. Let the country be freed from the situation of parliamentlessness and blood circulation in the obstructed constitutional process .

g) Considering the seriousness and sensitivity of the subject matter, since a decision must be made quickly on the presented matter, the written response of the opponents to the presented writ petition should be sought, the date of hearing should be fixed, and justice should be dispensed by continuous hearing in such a way that no party can postpone the presentation .

Initial hearing in 18 writs was placed on hold

18 writs challenging President Ram Chandra Poudel's decision to dissolve the House of Representatives and appoint Sushila Karki as the Prime Minister have already been registered and are under consideration . Of these, 17 writs were registered under public interest . The writ petition filed by 17 people including advocates Premraj Silwal, Yubaraj Poudel, Kirtinath Sharma Poudel, Ayush Badal, Khadak Bahadur Shah, Abhas Pokharel, Ayush Bhandari, Dambar Prasad Shiwakoti, Anil Karki and Dal Bahadur Dhami was registered on Asoj 29 and the first hearing was held on Kartik 22.

A five-judge constitutional bench including Chief Justice Prakash Man Singh Raut rejected the interim order and issued only a show cause order, seeking a written response within seven days.

Then the CPN-UML itself took up the writ petition. The constitutional bench, while conducting the first hearing on the UML writ petition, made a similar order on Mangsir 17. The constitutional bench of the Supreme Court ordered to seek a written response within seven days. Similarly, it also ordered that 17 previous petitions be kept (and heard together).

The final hearing will decide whether the dissolution of the House of Representatives on 27 Bhadra was constitutional or not. In the current situation, if the Supreme Court dismisses the writ, the dissolution will be upheld, while if the writ is issued, the dissolution will be nullified and the Parliament will be re-established. But as the government is intensively preparing for the 21 Falgun elections, it seems that it will take time to come up with a dissolution decision as the court has not yet stopped any work.

What is the difference between parties going to court and not going?

During the debate in the constitutional bench on 12 Kartik, Chief Justice Prakash Man Singh Raut had asked, 'Has any party come to the Supreme Court or not?' He had asked the advocates whether it was only public concern or whether the parties had also come to court to show their concerns.

After Raut asked such a question, legal practitioners gave an answer that was only of public concern at the time. After such a question from the judge, the CPN-UML started preparing to file a writ petition itself. Both the Congress and the UML have been calling the dissolution of the House of Representatives an unconstitutional move.