Kathmandu, Dec 4: The Office of the President has submitted its response to the Supreme Court regarding petitions challenging the dissolution of the House and the move to appoint a government under a former chief justice.
The reply states that the decision was taken because no other constitutional option was available at that moment, so the President acted based on the principle of necessity. The response argues that claims of unconstitutional conduct should be dismissed.
The President’s reply explained that the country was facing an unusual situation, and regular constitutional procedures could not function as expected. It stated that the President acted to protect national unity, independence and democratic values, and that the petitions questioning these steps should not stand.
According to the response, the President explored available options after the Prime Minister resigned and made recommendations. It adds that reviving the dissolved House would go against the political and social environment at a time when preparations for elections were already underway.
The document notes that the government had called new elections, and the situation was gradually returning to normal. Raising the issue of reinstatement now, the reply says, would conflict with the needs of the moment, so the petitioners’ demands should be rejected.
Citing past Supreme Court principles, the President’s Office argues that when regular constitutional processes cannot operate due to a difficult situation, actions taken to resolve the issue gain judicial justification under the necessity principle.
It also claims that forming a government led by someone outside Parliament after the Gen Z movement and the unrest that followed was part of the President’s duty to act as the guardian of the constitution. The reply adds that parties in Parliament failed to present a workable claim despite the President’s call to all sides, leading to an alternative decision.
People’s News Monitoring Service
Comments:
Leave a Reply