Amicus Curiae Debate: A Prime Minister who has not received a vote of confidence cannot make a claim under Article 5

Debating the writ petition against the dissolution of the House of Representatives as an amicus curiae, two advocates said that “a prime minister who has lost a vote of confidence cannot make a claim under Article 76 (5).”

Senior advocate Raghav Lal Vaidya sent by Nepal Bar to Amicus Curiae and Komal Prakash Ghimire sent by Supreme Bar argued on Monday that the Prime Minister who did not get a vote of confidence could not be re-appointed.

The other two Amicus Curiae did not enter into the matter. They discussed the party system and the power of the president.

Senior Advocate Vaidya said that Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, who lost the vote of confidence in the House of Representatives on April 10, should not be re-appointed as the Prime Minister. He said that the court should raise questions about this.

After the dissolution of the House of Representatives for the first time was overturned by the Supreme Court, Prime Minister Oli announced a vote of confidence in Parliament on 27 April. He did not receive a vote of confidence. Even the MPs of his own party were absent and did not cooperate with him while some MPs of the Janata Samajwadi Party (JSP) remained neutral.

He was then appointed Prime Minister as the parliamentary leader of the largest party in Parliament under Article 76, Clause 3. Vaidya argued that he should step down from the leadership after losing faith in the parliament.

“After losing faith in the parliament, how can it be the prime minister again as the largest party?” There is no provision in the constitution for such appointments, ‘he said. The underlying spirit of the constitution is that one cannot even sit as the leader of a parliamentary party.

Senior Advocate Vaidya argues that the party leadership should be formed after losing the seat in the parliament. He said that according to the constitutional process, the vote of confidence should not have been taken to go to Article 76, Sub-Article 5.

“The prime minister himself has paved the way for a new government. If he had not said so, the constitution would have said so. According to the constitution, it is not possible to become the prime minister without a vote of confidence, but he went to claim. Let the attention of the session also go into this. It is not constitutional to re-appoint a person who has not received a vote of confidence again and again, ‘he said.

He also said that dissolving the parliament was against the spirit of the constitution.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *