KATHMANDU, July 1: Senior advocate Surendra Mahato has argued that the President did not think that Sher Bahadur Deuba’s claim that he must be appointed as the Prime  minister was rational 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 members of parliament elected from one party should follow that party’s whips and that they cannot support candidates from any other party.  

In this connection, Mahato also presented the example saying that one party's lawmakers supporting the leader of the next party for the post of Prime Minister is like inducting the other team’s players into one's own team to win the match, but that could not be accepted.  

Chief justice Cholendra Shamsher Rana asked Mahato what would be evidence of commanding a majority in parliament besides the signatures of the majority parliamentarians to elect a Prime Minister. To this question, 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 a government. 

The hearing on the case is underway at the Constitutional Bench led by Chief Justice Cholendra SJB Rana and that comprises 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, on the recommendation of the Council of Ministers, dissolved the House of Representatives and fixed November 12 and 19 as the dates for mid-term elections.

The writs seek declaring the President's decision as unconstitutional and illegal, and reinstatement of the House of Representatives.

 
• HoR_dissolution
 
• hearing
 
• supreme_court