With dozens of writ petitions against the dissolution of the House of Representatives still pending in court, the UML has demanded that President Ram Chandra Poudel reinstate the House of Representatives. Through the then Chief Whip Mahesh Bartaula, the UML has also cited the precedent of the restoration of parliament by the then King Gyanendra Shah in 2062/063, saying that the House of Representatives should be reinstated by the President.

Chairman KP Sharma Oli's chief personal secretary Rajesh Bajracharya says that the views made public by the then Chief Whip Bartaula on Saturday are institutional views that came after consulting the party leadership. 

'The statement issued by the then Chief Whip is the official view of the party,' he told Kantipur, 'Whether the President corrects his steps or it is done through the courts, our main agenda is the restoration of the House of Representatives,' the Chairman has said. In the statement, Bartaula has demanded that the decision be corrected by restoring the House of Representatives from that point, as President Poudel made a serious mistake in dissolving the House of Representatives.

'Due to the serious constitutional negligence and weakness of the President, the House of Representatives, the highest institution of elected people's representatives, has been dissolved in a conspiratorial and unconstitutional manner,' Bartaula said in the statement. 'Dozens of writs have been registered and are pending in the esteemed courts for constitutional review and redress.' But since the constitutional weakness up to this point has been caused by the President, there is no need to wait for the order on the writs pending in the court to correct it from the point from which the weakness arose.'

Constitutional expert Bipin Adhikari says that the issue of whether or not to restore the House of Representatives is not in the hands of the President, but is a matter of judicial review by the court. 'This constitutional question has now become a matter of court jurisdiction. The President has nothing in his hands, whatever the court says is what happens,' he says.'

Another constitutional expert Chandrakant Gyawali says that if the election could not be held on 21 Falgun and a constitutional question arose, then too, restoration could only be done through judicial review by the court, not by the President.'

'If the election could not be held, the current government did not continue, and another government was not formed through political consensus, then the court could restore it through constitutional review, but asking the President to do so would be an interference in the court's jurisdiction and further derailing the constitution,' says Gyawali. UML has put forward the precedent of the then King Gyanendra's restoration of the House of Representatives (Parliament) on 8 Jestha 2059, not through a court order, but through a declaration on 11 Baisakh 2063, arguing that this time too, President Poudel should do the same. 

'In order to immediately end the constitutional crisis and growing political instability that arose due to the inability of the Honorable President himself to make a constitutional decision, the Honorable President himself should immediately announce the restoration of Parliament, keeping democracy, the Constitution, and accountability to the nation in mind, and call a meeting of Parliament,' Bartoula said in a statement. 'This is his mandatory constitutional duty and responsibility to find a way out of the complex situation created before his country today.' 

Constitutional scholar Gyawali said that the restoration that took place during the constitutional vacuum at that time cannot be brought back now. Both parties, UML and Congress, are busy with the homework of submitting a supplementary petition to the court with the signatures of the majority of MPs of the dissolved House of Representatives.