HoR dissolution: Urge to look for parliamentary practice

रेडियो दर्पण संवाददाता


Hearing on the writ petition filed against the decision of the government to dissolve the House of Representatives continued today at the Supreme Court.

After completion of the pleading by the petitioners on Sunday, the advocates representing the government have begun defending the Prime Minister’s decision to go for a fresh election.

Senior Advocate Sushil Pant today argued that anything that is not clearly written in the Constitution should be guided by parliamentary practice.

“As the Constitution is not very clear about the dissolution of the HoR, the parliamentary norms and values come into play, which is also mentioned in the PM’s reply in writing,” he said.

Earlier, attorney general Agni Prasad Kharel said that the dissolution of the House of Representatives was constitutional, and referred to the same situation in 2051 BS when a majority government had to be dissolved.

The present government was mandated to govern for five years but since it was not allowed to complete it, elections had to be announced.

Advocate Pant will continue to present his arguments before the Constitutional Bench of the apex court on Wednesday.