CPN-UML Chair KP Sharma Oli has submitted a written response to the Supreme Court regarding the petition demanding the reinstatement of the dissolved House of Representatives. In his response, he claims that the primary beneficiaries of the arson and chaos during the Gen-Z protests on Bhadra 23 and 24 are the current Prime Minister and ministers, asserting that they are responsible for creating the current political situation.
Oli stated that events clearly show Prime Minister Sushila Karki and her cabinet members engaged—visibly and invisibly—in actions aimed at seizing state power.
According to former Attorney General Ramesh Badal, Oli’s written response argues that Prime Minister Karki violated the Constitution less than an hour after taking the oath to remain fully loyal to it. Oli states that her recommendation to dissolve the House of Representatives was entirely unconstitutional.
In his response, Oli further argues that appointing former Chief Justice Sushila Karki as Prime Minister was unconstitutional since the President should have initiated the process of government formation as per Article 76 of the Constitution. He writes, “Appointing former Chief Justice Sushila Karki as Prime Minister is a direct violation of the Constitution.”
Oli also claims that the House dissolution process was unconstitutional because the Prime Minister made the recommendation without a decision from the Council of Ministers, even though the Constitution requires cabinet approval for such action. He states, “Under Article 75(1), the executive power of Nepal lies with the Council of Ministers. A Prime Minister alone cannot constitute a cabinet. Without the formation of a Council of Ministers, a unilateral recommendation by the Prime Minister cannot be considered as cabinet advice under Article 66(2).”
He emphasized that the Constitution mandates government change only through elections. “No government can be toppled through pressure or influence, and no individual lacking a popular mandate can run the government,” his response notes.
Oli concludes that the dissolution of the House, based on the recommendation of an unconstitutional Prime Minister, is unconstitutional and must be annulled. He requests the Supreme Court to overturn the dissolution and reinstate the House of Representatives.
The Supreme Court had sought Oli’s response to the writ filed by advocates Yubaraj Safal and Sher Bahadur Rokaya, who argue that both Karki’s appointment and the House dissolution were unconstitutional.
About the Author
