Spread the love

By Our Reporter

The question of whether the Supreme Court (SC) will reinstate the dissolved House of Representatives (HoR), or the lower house of parliament, is rapidly becoming the defining political and constitutional test for Nepal. With 20 petitions now before the Constitutional Bench, filed by political parties, lawmakers, legal professionals, and independent citizens, the apex court faces a delicate balance.

Recently, the SC ordered show cause notice to the government, the President’s office and other concerned bodies against the dissolution of the HoR, which came following September movement that toppled KP Sharma Oli government.

So far, the court has refrained from interim orders, opting instead to issue notices to respondents while seeking responses. Even this restrained approach reflects the enormity of the matter: The Supreme Court is aware that its decision will have sweeping implications for the Karki government, political parties, and the broader political order.

If the SC decides to reinstate the House, the implications are immediate and far-reaching. The interim government, formed under the Doctrine of Necessity after a sudden political collapse, would have to step aside, its mandate to hold elections rendered void. This would put Prime Minister Sushila Karki in an awkward position.

Despite her judicial acumen and experience, she has navigated a highly complex constitutional scenario without the traditional backing of a parliamentary majority. A reinstated House would shift political power back to the elected representatives, compelling parties to renegotiate governance and possibly reshuffle the cabinet. On the upside, such a move would restore legitimacy to parliamentary democracy, reinforcing the principle that the elected House remains the primary source of authority.

Political parties, particularly Nepali Congress and UML, which have now joined in supplementary petitions, would gain significant leverage in shaping the next government. However, this could also delay or cancel the March 5 election, creating both uncertainty and financial strain for the country, which cannot afford repeated costly polls. Similarly, the House reinstatement will be a step towards undermining the youth led September movement and will anger Gen Z generation. Actually, the House reinstatement will raise the fear of youths’ backlash.

Conversely, if the Supreme Court upholds the interim government and declines reinstatement, it would essentially endorse the Doctrine of Necessity as the guiding principle. The Karki government would gain a temporary but crucial window to conduct elections and attempt to stabilize the political environment.

This would strengthen the government’s legal standing and allow it to focus on preparing the elections, albeit under intense scrutiny. At the same time, parties skeptical of the legitimacy of the interim arrangement would remain critical, potentially challenging each decision and adding to political tension. Maintaining public trust under such conditions would be difficult, and any misstep could be interpreted as overreach or erosion of constitutional norms.

The Supreme Court’s role, therefore, is pivotal. Its verdict will determine whether Nepal moves toward restored parliamentary authority or affirms the interim government’s role in steering the country to elections. The justices must weigh not only the legal arguments of the petitioners but also the practical realities: the elections are imminent, consensus among parties is weak, and prolonged delay risks deepening instability. A timely, reasoned verdict will end uncertainty, reinforce democratic norms, and clarify the country’s path forward. Delay, however, risks prolonging limbo, leaving the interim government, political parties, and citizens in a prolonged state of constitutional and political uncertainty.