KATHMANDU, June 29: Deputy Attorney General (DAG) Padma Prasad Pandey has argued that the constitution of Nepal does not envisage the Prime Minister's resignation in the current situation.

Pleading on behalf of the government during the hearing on the case relating to the dissolution of the House of Representatives (HoR) at the Constitutional Bench  comprising Chief Justice Cholendra SJB Rana and justices Deepak Kumar Karki, Mira Khadka, Ishwar Prasad Khatiwada and Dr Ananda Mohan Bhattarai today, he argued that  the PM’s resignation was not envisaged by the constitution. 

“There is no provision in the constitution that the Prime Minister appointed in accordance with Article 76 (3) of the constitution cannot stake claim to the post of Prime Minister to be appointed as per Article 76 (5),” he said, adding that a member of the House of Representatives elected by a party must comply with the party's statute. 

“Article 76 (5) of the constitution has provisions about a party and anyone without association with a political party cannot be a member of the House of Representatives. The constitution allows the split of the party, but it is not allowed to support another party by sitting in the same party.’’ 

"Congress and Maoist-Center seem to have moved ahead with the party's decision," he added. 

Chief Justice Rana asked whether Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, appointed in accordance with Article 76 (3) of the Constitution, could declare on his own that he would not seek a vote of confidence. 

During the debate, Chief Justice Rana asked, "Shouldn't this process go through parliament? Can parliament be boycotted?”

In reply, Deputy Attorney General Pandey said, "There is no provision that a proposal for not seeking a vote of confidence should be tabled in parliament. There is no need to follow the parliamentary procedures when one is convinced of not winning the confidence vote and surrenders.’’

Deputy Attorney General Pandey has been given two hours to put his argument and until the filing of this report, his debate continues.

Similarly, Pandey has argued that the President had to dissolve the House of Representatives (HoR) as she did not see any constitutional basis for the appointment of the Prime Minister. 

He contended that the HoR was dissolved as per the constitution since there was no clear basis in the claim made by both CPN (UML) Chair and Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba for appointment to the post of Prime Minister.  

When Chief Justice Rana asked him saying this question has been raised as the process stipulated in Article 76 (5) of the Constitution has not been fulfilled and an alternative should have been sought in this situation, Deputy Attorney General Pandey said the President did not accept the claim made by both leaders as she 'did not see any basis in both'. The bench, too, cannot look into this matter, he said.

 
• HoR_dissolution
 
• hearing
 
• supreme_court