Senior Advocate Surendra Mahato has argued that the President did not think the claim of Sher Bahadur Deuba as rational to appoint him to the post of Prime Minister as his claim was supported by the lawmakers from other political parties.
Presenting his arguments in the hearings related to the case of House of Representatives (HoR) dissolution at the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court today, advocate Mahato argued that the member of the same party should follow party order and cannot support other party leaders.
In this connection, Mahato also presented the example saying that one party's lawmakers supporting the leader of the next party to the post of Prime Minister is like inducting other team’s players to one's team to win the match, but that could not be accepted.
Chief justice Cholendra Shamsher Rana asked Mahato what would be evidence rather than the signatures of the majority parliamentarians to elect a Prime Minister. To this Mahato replied that lawmakers from one party could not be counted in another party’s support. Mahato further claimed that the constitution does not permit lawmakers to go beyond the party line to form the government.
The hearing on the case is underway at the Constitutional Bench led by the chief justice Cholendra Shamsher JB Rana and comprising justices Deepak Kumar Karki, Mira Khadka, Ishwar Prasad Khatiwada, and Dr Ananda Mohan Bhattarai.
Thirty writs were filed against the dissolution of the House of Representatives. On May 22, President Bidya Devi Bhandari had, on the recommendation of the Council of Ministers, dissolved the House of Representatives and fixed November 12 and 19 as the date for the mid-term election.
The writs seek to declare the President's this decision as unconstitutional and illegal and reinstatement of the House of Representatives.