The apex court seeks reply from defendants including the President
KATHMANDU, Oct 30: The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court has declined to issue an interim order on the writ petitions filed against the formation of the interim government led by Prime Minister Sushila Karki and the dissolution of the House of Representatives.
The bench comprising chief justice Prakashman Singh Raut, seniormost justice Sapana Pradhan Malla, justices Kumar Regmi, Hari Prasad Phuyal and Manoj Kumar Sharma took the decision to this effect.
The Bench also directed the defendants, including the Office of the President and the Office of the Prime Minister to submit a written response within seven days through the Office of the Attorney General.
At least 16 petitioners had sought an interim order to halt the implementation of the government’s formation, dissolution of the House of Representative and the call for new election on March 5, 2026.
The interim government under Prime Minister Sushila Karki was formed following the September 8 and 9 Gen Z protest, which had toppled the previously elected government. The new government subsequently recommended the dissolution of the House of Representatives, a move approved by President Ram Chandra Paudel on September 12. The government then called for a fresh election.
Preliminary hearings on these petitions began on Wednesday at the Constitutional Bench located in the annex building of the Supreme Court, as the main building remains damaged by arson during the Gen Z movement on September 9.
The arson and vandalism had forced the court to suspend all operations except for habeas corpus and urgent petitions. Regular registration and hearings of writs resumed only on October 14, leading to a surge of filings challenging the government’s decision to dissolve the House.
During Wednesday’s hearing, justices of the Constitutional Bench had urged lawyers to focus their arguments on the issue of whether an interim order should be issued. Justice Kumar Regmi had remarked, “Should the interim order also halt the elections? If that happens, the entire system will come to a standstill. Can the country function if everything stops?”
Justice Sapana Pradhan Malla similarly questioned the scope and applicability of such an interim order, while other justices had echoed the same concerns.
Senior advocate Tikaram Bhattarai, advocate Prem Raj Silwal among others had presented arguments on behalf of the petitioners asking the court to reinstate the dissolved HoR.