The current controversy over whether or not Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli should take a vote of confidence has put our understanding and implementation of the constitutional process into question. After the Civil Liberties Party withdrew its support, it does not seem to be consistent with the impartial role of the Parliament Secretariat to submit an answer to the Supreme Court in the style of defending the Prime Minister.

The constitution clearly states that the prime minister must take a vote of confidence when a party participating in the government withdraws support. It is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution to say that there is a majority without implementing it. Parliament is an independent and sovereign institution, but the Secretariat's standing in favor of the executive has reduced the dignity of the Parliament . In this way, it is a dangerous sign for the balance of democracy that the parliament looks like a shadow of the executive. 

As the constitutionalists have repeatedly said, as soon as the question arises whether the Prime Minister has a majority or not, it is mandatory to take a vote of confidence . This not only strengthens the political status of the Prime Minister, but also strengthens our faith and practice towards the Constitution. If there is a weakness in the regulation, it can be amended, but the provisions of the constitution cannot be enforced. 

If we are not able to follow the constitution literally, there is a possibility that tomorrow every constitutional interpretation will be twisted according to personal interests . Therefore, the parliament secretariat should not protect the executive, but should play the role of protecting the constitution and the independence of the parliament.