‘Even if the court restores the parliament, the government will not be stable’

Kathmandu : Senior Advocate Madhav Baskota has claimed that the constitution envisages the dissolution of the parliament.

This was stated by Senior Advocate Baskota while arguing in favor of Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli in the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court against the dissolution of Parliament.

Claiming that the parliament was not dissolved two years before the formation of the government, he argued that it was not written in the constitution that the dissolution could not take place five years ago.

He said that Article 85 of the constitution is an alternative to dissolving the parliament after two years, i.e. five years ago.

“This constitution envisages dissolution. Dissolved 2 years ago. It is not written in the constitution that dissolution cannot take place 5 years ago. ”He said,“ Dissolution can take place after 2 years. For the same reason, the option to go ahead in Article 85 has been kept.

They have also claimed that the constitution does not prohibit the dissolution of the parliament. Similarly, he argued that the election was not a matter for the apex court but for the state.

His senior lawyer, Bascotta, argued that the government could use the parliamentary system to hold elections.

“The constitution does not prohibit dissolution. Election is not a matter for husbands to pay attention to, it is a matter for the state. Expenditure liability is not a matter for the court. The government can hold elections using the parliamentary system. ” He said.

He also claimed that even if the Supreme Court reconstitutes the parliament, the government will not be stable and elections will not be held. He also argued that the parliament could be reconstituted only if a no-confidence motion was registered the day before the dissolution of the parliament.

“Elections cannot be stopped. Even if the court restores the parliament, the government will not be stable. If the no-confidence motion had been registered the day before, the husbands could have been reinstated. ” He said, “But in case the registration is delayed and the party is not split, the dissolution is justified.”