The LGBTQ+ community hailed a historical breakthrough in their rights on 28 June as Justice Til Prasad Shrestha of Nepal’s Supreme Court issued a temporary order to register same-sex marriages. Ten days later as parties applied to the District Court to register their marriage judge Madhav Prasad Mainali of the Kathmandu District Court rejected the application for marriage registration. A sub ordinate court appeared to be defying a Supreme Court ruling. The applicant Maya Gurung (legally named Ram Bahadur Gurung in court documents) filed a petition at the High Court Patan asking it to quash the District Court’s illegal order that stopped the registration of their marriage. Last week the High Court upheld the District Court’s ruling calling the refusal to register same-sex marriage legal. The High Court has predicated its decisions on legal procedure as opposed to substantive rights. There are also lawyers on both sides who believe in the human rights and equality of LGBTQ+ community but battle lines have been drawn on legal technicalities. Supreme Court Justice Til Prasad Shrestha in an ex parte hearing ordered the Government of Nepal to make temporary provisions to register no-heterosexual marriages. ‘This came out of an ex parte hearing!’ several friends who are lawyers (and vocal proponents of LGBTQ+ rights) exclaimed, ‘It might be judicial over-reach’ one observed. Their comments are based on legal principles. Ex parte hearings are hearings in which only one party to a case presents arguments and evidence to a judge. The other party is absent. An interim order through an ex parte hearing is sought when the matter at hand is urgent and there is no time to invite both parties to a case to hear the arguments and reach a decision. Read also: <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/here-now/one-step-forward-two-steps-back-on-same-sex-marriage">One step forward two steps back on same-sex marriage</a> To take a hypothetical example, a person’s house is about to be knocked down by a commercial builder. The person may seek to challenge the decision to knock down her house. However, it takes time till the builder is served notice of the lawsuit and invited to court to make their counter arguments. In this instance an emergency interim order may be sought to ‘not knock down the house’ until the case is finally decided. The question is, does the registration of non-heterosexual marriage qualify as an issue of urgency that merited an interim order issued by an ex parte hearing? Marriage registration, unlike other civil matters, invites a complex web of legal repercussions. It affects laws on divorce, domestic violence, polygamy, adoption, child adoption, custody, property inheritance and property division amongst spouses. Barring domestic violence Nepali laws in all these matters only envision a spousal relationship between a heterosexual man and woman. Justice Til Prasad Shrestha is not one to shy away from activism from the bench and issue bold orders. However, his order does not appear to have contemplated any of subsequent effects of marriage on issues of children, property or divorce. His order simply directs the registration of non-heterosexual marriages until subsequent laws are amended to accommodate rights of the LGBTQ+ community. Thus his ex parte order on an issue with expansive legal scope can resonate with perceptions that it is judicial over reach. The Supreme Court order is also issued for the Government of Nepal to make provisions to register same-sex marriages. It is not explicitly issued to the District Courts that are charged with the authority to register all marriages in Nepal. It is a legal technicality but one that is important as it does not compel any courts in Nepal to follow the order. It is a pronouncement for the executive government not the judiciary was one of the arguments presented by a government attorney who defended the Kathmandu District Court’s decision at the High Court. This argument was upheld in the High Court’s ruling. If the Executive government is implementing a legal order that has wide scale impact on a large number of people such as same-sex marriage, it is a legal requirement that notice of this is published in the Raj Patra, the government’s official noticeboard. It was argued that this Raj Patra notice might have been a more compelling order for the District Court to register the marriage. Read also: <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/news/a-mother-celebrates-pride">A mother celebrates Pride</a>, Durga Rana Magar  <figure><img src="https://publisher-publish.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/pb-nepalitimes/swp/asv65r/media/2023101713104_23511b683ea63cf5c3bc0d59a4c3b7ac1a0702eb308a4b3cb492b9a06e313dfd.jpg" data-media-id="editor_2" data-image-id="2023101713104_23511b683ea63cf5c3bc0d59a4c3b7ac1a0702eb308a4b3cb492b9a06e313dfd" data-rendition-name="original" width="1778" height="1000" loading="lazy" alt="same sex marriage"></figure>  The government attorney argued that to issue a Raj Patra notice, the Government of Nepal needs time to make requisite amendments to a host of laws pertaining to family matters in tandem with registering non heterosexual marriage. He sounded alarms of proceeding without requisite preparation by putting questions before High Court judges such as: What happens if there is polygamy in this newly registered marriage? Will we charge anybody or will we ignore it as the law in its current status criminalises polygamy by men only? How will we proceed with divorce and inheritance as men and women are treated differently by Nepali laws? Whilst there is allure of a technical argument that asks for reasonable preparation time for the Government of Nepal, it is worth remembering that the government has had 16 years to do this work. The landmark decision in the case of Sunil Babu Panta not just decriminalised same-sex marriage but also ordered the Government of Nepal to make arrangements, including enacting new laws or amending existing laws, to ensure that people of different gender identities and sexual orientations could enjoy their rights without discrimination. The High Court order states that if the government of Nepal makes required provisions same-sex marriages can be registered accordingly. An interim order is not a final decision. The case still needs to be heard in full by the Supreme Court with lawyers from the applicant’s side and the Government’s side making arguments for and against registering same-sex marriage. The constitution is unequivocal in its provision of rights to equality and special protection for gender and sexual minorities. This provides grounds to pre-empt that the court will likely uphold the constitution in the final decision though there is always a chance of surprise. However, in law the devil lies in the details. It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court manoeuvres orders towards an obstinate government and legislature to implement any judgment it issues. Within the court’s rank is Justice Hari Phuyal who was litigating on behalf of Sunil Babu Panta in 2007. There is no shortage of subject matter expertise in the ranks of judges now. Read also: <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/here-now/eleganza-extravaganza">Eleganza Extravaganza</a>, Sahina Shrestha Any rights given to the LGBTQ+ community meets with resistance and controversy. The Supreme Court must ensure that if it confers any rights to this community it safeguards it against procedural and technical legal challenges. Currently the LGBTQ+ community and the country waits in suspense as this petition awaits hearing at the Supreme Court. The uncertainty of when they will get their day in court is unfair to a large population. The Supreme Court has decided cases swiftly in the past like the case of MP Rabi Lamichhane. There is no reason why it cannot do the same for this case by issuing a date for the hearing with orders that there can be no adjournment. This move would lend clarity to the status or rights of LGBTQ+ communities instead of holding them hostage to procedural arguments and delays. Read also: <a href="https://nepalitimes.com/latest/nepal-is-ahead-of-many-countries-in-lgbtqi-rights">"Nepal is ahead of many countries in LGBTQI+ rights"</a> Aastha Dahal is a Kathmandu-based lawyer with a PhD in criminology from the University of Cambridge.

original

674x448

610x380

500x500

400x266

400x240

400x203

301x200

1250x600

1084x550

Right to marry in Nepal

Background&nbsp;
July 2022: Both Houses of Parliament passed an amendment to Nepal’s Citizenship Act 2006. Called the Nepal Citizenship (First Amendment) Bill, it was sent to former Nepal President Bidya Devi Bhandari for formal ratification. 
 
August 2022: Bhandari sent the bill back to the Sher Bahadur Deuba-led Lower House with 15 ‘concerns and suggestions’ for review. 
 
September 2022: The bill was once more passed by both Houses of Parliament without any changes, but <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/news/president-s-precedent">Sital Niwas allowed its 20 September ratification deadline to lapse</a>. Since the ceremonial head of state did not authenticate the bill, it was rendered null and void. Many saw this deadlock as a result of the power struggle between the opposition UML, which had appointed Bhandari president, and the NC-UML coalition. 
 
September 2022: Parliament was dissolved after completing its five-year term. 
 
March 2023: President Bhandari herself completed her tenure and was succeeded by Ram Chandra Poudel. 
 
31 May 2023: President Poudel authenticated the Citizenship Amendment Bill rejected by his predecessor, following a recommendation by the Council of Ministers.
Read also: <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/here-now/nepals-unequal-citizenship-law">Nepal's unequal Citizenship Law</a>, Ajay Pradhan
What is in it?
The amendment clears the way for children of parents who got citizenship by birth to become citizens by descent and paves the way for hundreds of thousands of Nepalis, especially in the Tarai, to finally become Nepali citizens. The bill also allows Non-Resident Nepalis (NRNs), except for those residing within South Asia, to acquire dual citizenship but without the right to vote.&nbsp;
Activists have long said the bill’s restrictions on citizenship for children born to single mothers as well as the process of obtaining naturalised citizenship were discriminatory towards women.
The bill allows foreign women married to Nepali men to immediately obtain naturalised citizenship provided the women renounce the citizenship of their country of origin. But there is no similar provision for foreign men married to Nepali women to get Nepali citizenship.&nbsp;
Meanwhile, children born to Nepali mothers born in and residing in Nepal whose fathers are not identified are eligible for Nepali citizenship by descent. However, the woman must make a self-declaration that the father cannot be identified and she can be imprisoned if the claim turns out to be false.
A Nepali man does not have to mention any details of the mother of their child to get citizenship. A child born to a Nepali man married to a foreign woman can obtain citizenship by descent, but a child born to a Nepali mother and a foreign father will only be eligible for naturalised citizenship provided the state deems it okay.&nbsp;
Read also: <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/banner/are-women-not-nepali-enough">Are women not Nepali enough?</a>, Sahina Shrestha
What now?&nbsp;
President Ram Chandra Poudel’s authentication of the Citizenship Amendment Bill on 31 May on the eve of Prime Minister Dahal’s official visit to India drew both outrage and appreciation from across the political spectrum and civil society.
While NRNs as well as hundreds of thousands of people mostly in the Tarai deprived of citizenship welcomed the move, some constitutional and political experts were critical of the process by which the president ratified the bill.&nbsp;
“In a parliamentary system, neither the President nor the government has the right or the authority to validate a dormant bill, one passed by an already lapsed House,” said constitutional expert Bipin Adhikari. “The ball was not in President Poudel’s court.”
Usha Malla Pathak, former Vice President of the Nepal Bar Association, agreed: “The move by the President to authenticate the bill, which was not passed by a new Parliament, is unconstitutional so there is no point debating its merits.”
While some parties are entirely against the bill, others seem to agree with some parts of it while disagreeing with others-- especially provision allowing foreign women married to Nepali men to obtain naturalised citizenship without any waiting period.
Read also:<a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/editorial/patriarchy-in-an-oligarchy"> Patriarchy in an oligarchy</a>
Nationalist groups have said the bill would open the floodgates for Indians to marry Nepalis and settle down in the Tarai. Critics wondered if there was a connection to the timing of the ratification just before Prime Minister Dahal’s official visit to India.
Members of Dahal’s coalition, including the NC’s GaganThapa have publicly criticised the bill. Rabi Lamichhane’s RSP has called the bill anti-national.&nbsp;
On Sunday, the Supreme Court acting on a writ petition issued an interim order against the implementation of the amendment bill. Many without citizenship who had reached government offices across the country to get their certificates were once again turned back.&nbsp;
In Parliament on Monday, Prime Minister Dahal deferred decision on the bill to the apex court, whereas the opposition UML leader K P Oli called for a new bill to be tabled in the House for discussion.
The Supreme Court Bar Association on Tuesday put out a statement calling the authentication of the bill unconstitutional.
‘It is the opinion of the Bar Association that the honourable president has approved the Citizenship Bill against Nepal’s parliamentary system, the Constitution, and the principle of the separation of powers,’ wrote Bar Secretary Shyam Kumar Khatri.
Read also: <a href="https://archive.nepalitimes.com/news.php?id=18401#.YuNBD-xByrc">Stateless in their motherland</a>, Kunda Dixit
<h2>Once a Nepali, always Nepali</h2>
Much of the to-and-fro about the Citizenship Amendment Bill which has been blocked by the Supreme Court after ratification by President, has centred on the fact that the president should not have approved a bill that was passed by a lapsed parliament.&nbsp;
However, many Nepalis are not worried about due process not being followed, but on the contents of the bill: specifically the provision allowing foreign women married to Nepali men to immediately obtain naturalised citizenship. The <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/news/indian-nepalis-alarmed-by-citizenship-amendment-bill">rhetoric</a> surrounding this debate has been hyper-nationalist, anti-Indian, and anti-Madhes.&nbsp;
The opposition UML has been using similar nationalist and populist talking points to criticise the bill, and the RSP, the new party of young professionals which exited the governing coalition joined the fray, calling it “anti-national”.
One notable aspect of the bill that has been overshadowed is the provision for Non-Resident Nepalis (NRNs) to finally obtain dual citizenship. NRNs will however not be allowed to vote, run for public office or hold civil service jobs, and dual citizenship applies only to overseas Nepalis and not those in South Asia.
NRNs seeking dual citizenship need to present proof that their parent or grandparent is a Nepali citizen. They must present proof of having renounced Nepali citizenship, and must have foreign citizenship.
Those who have not renounced their Nepali citizenship previously cannot use the same identification and must present their old citizenship before they obtain a new Nepali citizenship.&nbsp;
Read also: <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/banner/nepals-suffragette-moment/" target="_blank">Nepal's suffragette moment</a>, Om Astha Rai
NRNs can open bank accounts in Nepal, own and operate businesses and conduct trade, buy land and property, inherit assets, make investments.
The Non-Resident Nepalese Association (NRNA) promptly welcomed the bill’s authentication, saying in a statement:&nbsp;
‘The bill addresses the long-standing demand for Non-Resident Nepali Citizenship from millions of non-resident Nepalis scattered around the world since 2003. We are confident that this step by the Honourable President will soon give meaning to the NRNA mantra of Once a Nepali, always a Nepali.’
It added that this connects Nepali people worldwide to their homeland and utilise their knowledge, skills, and capital to benefit Nepal.
<div class="embed-block"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">I’m so pleased to hear that Nepal’s Government have just passed a new Citizenship Bill – this is great news - why? For a number of reasons but one is that now Non-Resident Nepalis (NRNs) – including Gurkhas - can have dual citizenship. Currently around 2.17 million Nepalis live… <a href="https://t.co/HIXLJUKzgf">pic.twitter.com/HIXLJUKzgf</a>&mdash; Nirmal Purja MBE (@nimsdai) <a href="https://twitter.com/nimsdai/status/1664185815419977733?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 1, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
Although some overseas Nepalis that Nepali Times spoke to said they had no knowledge about the bill, others were overjoyed that they could now invest in Nepal and contribute to the home economy.&nbsp;
Former British Army commando and mountaineer Nimsdai Purja was among those who took to social media to express his appreciation.
‘Granting NRN this new legal citizenship…will allow NRNs to practice full economic, social and cultural rights. I believe it is a step in the right direction towards a more positive and prosperous future for the country,’ wrote Purja. ‘This makes tourism and investment easier … means that the wealth is distributed from central areas like Kathmandu to less wealthy communities in mountain areas.’&nbsp;

Shristi Karki

Nepal’s Citizenship Amendment Bill explained

<img width="1394" height="958" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/2022111413114/63722ebe9c7e80680e0c24dcjpeg.jpg" alt=""/>Three days after the Supreme Court released the full text of its verdict ordering the government to halt all plans to build a new <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/here-now/building-nijgad-come-what-may/">international airport at Nijgad Forest</a>, Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba flew down to the site in an Army helicopter. His Communist coalition partners Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Madhav Kumar Nepal went along for the ride.In defiance of the Supreme Court, Deuba vowed to challenge the ruling. Sitting in a semicircle of sofas with other Cabinet ministers, he declared: “The government is committed to completing the construction of both the Nijgad airport and the Kathmandu-Tarai Expressway linking it to the capital.”Deuba interpreted the 3-2 ruling by the justices to mean that the high court had not actually rejected building the airport, just to ensure adherence to environmental safeguards. Why such a show of force and thumbing of noses on the part of the executive against the judiciary? Tagging along with Deuba on the Nijgad flyby were the entire cabinet and coalition partners. Not only is the unity of the coalition hanging by a thread as individual members weigh their chances in November's federal and provincial elections, but member parties are also <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/editorial/deubas-mixed-report-card/">rife with internal tension.</a>The <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/editorial/aborted-landing-in-nijgad/">real estate mafia</a> with close ties to the leadership of all political parties has reportedly invested heavily in land surrounding the proposed $3.6 billion airport. <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/editorial/aborted-landing-in-nijgad/">Contractors will also benefit</a> from political patronage and are rubbing their palms at <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/here-now/15-points-for-and-against-nijgad-airport/">felling an entire forest</a> of hardwood timber.But the more immediate reason for government partners and the entire cabinet to airlift itself to Nijgad on Saturday was <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/banner/planting-seeds-of-democracy/">to show that the coalition is strong </a>and united. <img width="1738" height="832" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/2022111413114/63722ec29c7e80680e0c24ddjpeg.jpg" alt="">The trip also came the day after the dissident Nepali Congress leader Shekhar Koirala accused Deuba of no longer being the president of his own party, but president of the coalition. Koirala’s faction includes deputy president Dhanaraj Gurung and general secretary Gagan Thapa, and threatened to launch a “constructive opposition” against its own party leadership. It also accused Deuba of tolerating lack of transparency in the Finance Ministry, and of his inability to take action to protect the economy from further shock.Bagmati Province Chief Minister Rajendra Pandey was also in the group. Nijgad falls within Madhes Province, and its Chief Minister Lal Babu Raut also wants the airport project to go ahead to spur economic growth.Rajendra Pandey’s inclusion in the trip taken win added significance because he has refused to step down as chief minister of Bagmati Province as agreed earlier with the coalition partners. In fact, Nepali Congress leaders in Hetauda had started a signature campaign against Pandey and a decision was to be taken at a parliamentary party meeting of the Unified Socialists on Saturday itself.The other reason for the trip was for Deuba to send an indirect message of defiance to the Supreme Court that it had no business interfering with decisions of the government.  It was a signal that the executive does not feel compelled to follow word for word any decision of the judiciary. <img width="1500" height="1000" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/2022111413114/63722ec59c7e80680e0c24dejpeg.jpg" alt="">In fact, the Supreme Court’s decision has taken the proposal to build an international report in Nijgad to its pre-1995 date. From now on, we should no longer refer to Nijgad as <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/banner/does-nepal-need-a-4th-international-airport/">a proposed international airport</a>, but as the last remaining native tropical forest in the eastern Tarai that it is. The Court's final text says: ‘We do not see any logical argument to prove that there is no other alternative to building an airport at Nijgad.’An exhaustive and lengthy sentence in the verdict goes on to state: ‘In addition to the economic and technical feasibility of the airport, there needs to be an objective, neutral and competent assessment by economists, social scientists, administration experts, of the impact on the environment, forest ecosystem, wildlife of the region, and an investigation into alternative sites where actual and realistic ways to minimise the environment impact are examined so that a legally acceptable environmental risk assessment report can be made that takes into account expert advice, to conclude what capacity airport should be built, where, and in what area, and the court orders that these factors are then taken into account to decide on the location of an airport that has the smallest ecological footprint.’Translated, these 119 pages of legalese means that the Supreme Court has decided that destroying the Nijgad Forest to build an airport <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/here-now/zurich-airport-international-opts-out-of-nepal-project/">is not worth the damage</a>. The issue now is: will the government dare to go against this verdict?Read more: <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/banner/nijgads-green-runway/">Nijgad’s green runway</a>, Kashish Das Shrestha

Flight of fancy

<img width="1279" height="774" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/2022111016118/636d141b9c7e80680e0a995fjpeg.jpg" alt=""/>Till he was recalled last month by Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba, Nilambar Acharya was Nepal’s ambassador to India since 2019. Acharya had previously served as Law Minister, as well as the Chairman of the Constitutional Committee. He spoke to Santa Gaha Magar about Indo-Nepal relations, and the country’s domestic politics:Nepali Times: As someone who was posted to New Delhi during a <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/untangling-the-kalapani-knot/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">rocky period in bilateral relations</a>  please give some insight into the current state of India-Nepal ties.Nilamber Acharya: The relationship between Nepal and India is vast and nuanced. There are problems as well as positives, and they cannot be understood if we look at them in a one-dimensional framework. We need to be careful that the problems do not overshadow the positive aspects of our relationship. The Indian people have a lot of goodwill towards Nepalis.Like any other relationship, our bilateral ties need to evolve in the context of the times. And that has been the biggest challenge. Both governments and their political leadership need to be especially mindful of this fact.What could be the reasons why India has not formally received the report prepared by the bilateral Eminent Persons' Group (EPG) on Nepal-India relations?I am not sure why India has been reluctant to receive the EPG report. The document, which is integral to strengthening the foundations of our bilateral relationship, was finalised in consensus with four members from both countries. If India delays acknowledging and receiving the report any longer, it will be that much more difficult to move forward to review our diplomatic relations.Could it be that Nepal has not taken a more active initiative to implement the report?We have consistently engaged with our Indian counterparts to follow up on the EPG. There was not a single meeting during my term as ambassador when this report wasn’t discussed.In fact, then-Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj at one stage before the 2019 Indian elections had assured us that India would receive the report. Prime Minister Narendra Modi said the same thing during the inauguration of the Nepal-India Petroleum Pipeline. Ultimately, it did not work out.After that, was there not enough pressure from Nepal, or did the Indians change their mind? Initially, both sides had agreed to submit the report first to the Prime Minister of India, then to the Prime Minister of Nepal, following which it would be made public via a press conference. However, there has been a roadblock from the Indian side. As I said, Nepal has repeatedly reminded and urged our counterparts to move forward with the report, but to no avail. Once the report is received, it would then be up to both the governments to decide whether to implement the its provisions and to what extent. One thing is for sure. Our bilateral relationships cannot move forward on the basis of the 1950 treaty.Could <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/india-china-and-nepals-political-crisis/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">India’s perceptions on Nepal vis-à-vis China</a> be one of the reasons?Our relations with India and China are mutually exclusive to one another. Establishing diplomatic ties with another country does not mean that our relations with India have weakened. Diplomatic relations with countries have different contexts, and must therefore be understood separately. Diplomatic ties with one nation do not and should not have a negative effect on relations with another.Let us turn to Nepal. As a former law minister, what are your views on the <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/nepals-lawyers-on-warpath-against-chief-justice/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Supreme Court row</a>?The current controversy surrounding the Supreme Court is not limited to whether the Chief Justice should resign or not. This issue is emblematic of a widespread disease that has for long plagued the very foundation of Nepal’s judiciary, which needs to be addressed properly. It is the responsibility of the Chief Justice, the judges of the court, and the government to address and solve those problems immediately.However, instances of judges boycotting the court and refusing to hear and try cases are not representative of the principles of the judiciary. The <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/opinion/the-real-story-in-nepals-supreme-court-debacle/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">problems within the court</a> must under no circumstances impact the judicial process or hinder Nepalis’ right to justice.Who is responsible?The government, political leadership, and experts in the field must come together to identify the problem through research and investigation. <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/what-is-happening-to-nepals-supreme-court/">What is happening to Nepal’s Supreme Court?</a>, Santa Gaha MagarMany have linked the Constitutional Council, the Judicial Council, and even the Constitution of Nepal to the problems surrounding the Supreme Court. Do you see any flaws in the constitution?Seeing as the Constitution maintains objectivity over all things, debates about flaws in the Constitution do not come into play in this matter. What needs to be thoroughly examined is whether there are irregularities in institutional appointments and if the concerned authorities have been doing the work that they were assigned to do. Corruption must be investigated and the corrupt punished, but baseless public indictment must not be entertained. That is how this disease can be treated.Is our constitutional structure equipped to establish bodies to address our current problems?
The government should not remain silent in this matter by leaving it up to the judiciary. Rather, should find a solution to this problem through political means, by hearing the grievances of all disputing groups.
Moreover, it is natural to protest and make your voices heard, but the movements concerning this issue must not be drawn out to the degree that it affects the people's right to justice. That is not correct.
If the government gets involved, doesn’t it mean that the executive and the legislature are interfering in matters of the judiciary?
It is not to say that the government should direct the judiciary on what to do and what not to do, and should not be taken to mean as a call against the<a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/here-now/supreme-court-puts-nepal-politics-back-on-track/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> separation of powers</a>. Rather, the government must facilitate the judiciary in the administration of justice. This is similar to how the executive assigns the budget to the court, and how laws implemented by the judiciary are passed by the parliament.
As it is, this became a matter of political concern as soon as the problem could not be contained within the judiciary, and the fights and disagreements spilled out into the streets.
Many have compared the current state of Nepal’s judiciary to that of post-panchayat Nepal in 1990. Was the judiciary in a better position then than it is now?
The circumstances surrounding Nepal’s courts then and now are incomparable. Nepal’s judiciary only became independent after 1990, following which judges were appointed through a democratic system. Before that, judges used to be assigned for having joined a political party, or simply for holding and voicing opinions about the need for democracy. 
Was that a good arrangement? Certainly not. Barring some decisions in the favour of the people and the media, court decisions largely discriminated against the citizens and deprived them of their rights.
Other aspects of Nepali society have been cited as being better before than it is now.
As I said, comparisons do not help. Nepal in the past did not have inclusion, in the human, political, and civil rights and liberties spheres. And while this is not to say that the past was without any progress, it is inaccurate to say that Nepal was more just or democratic in the past. 
The people could neither form governments nor change them if they were dissatisfied. In fact, they were not people at all, but subjects. As far as the courts were concerned, judicial decisions were heavily influenced by forces outside the judiciary. As it was, people were able to demand to be heard and were ultimately successful in establishing democracy in 1990. Following the king’s refusal to be a subordinate to his people, Nepal became a republic.
What is your response to those who ascribe the current problems within Nepal to republicanism, secularism and federalism?
The reasons for problems in Nepal at present are not due to the Constitution--although the Constitution should be amended in time--but due to a failure to implement its provisions. Societal instability is not due to republicanism or inclusion, but due to the inability to bring those concepts into practice. The flaw lies not in democracy, but in the fact that we do not have a functioning democratic process. The multi-party system is not responsible, but <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/editorial/they-fail-we-fall/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">factions operating within individual political parties</a> are.
The problem is not the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal. The problem is that we have not yet been able to bring into practice what the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal symbolises.
So republicanism or secularism are not directly threatened?
Everyone has the freedom to voice different views in a democratic society, and we have come a long way to achieve this. When people are dissatisfied with the democratic process, they can express that through the polls. What is in the past will remain there, be it the Rana regime, the Panchayat, or the monarchy. The only way to move is forward.
Does it seem like Nepal’s major political parties have been stingy in taking ownership of the federal democratic republic?
Nepal’s history from a monarchy to a federal democratic republic is the result of significant transitions. We have been headed in a positive direction, and things are not worse than they were before. For instance, it is not to say that corruption has increased, rather the awareness of corruption and the need to hold those corrupt to account has increased. Similarly, we are at a point where we can openly speak out against discrimination and mistreatment of communities. 
There is no need to be discouraged by the momentum of Nepal’s socio-political progress. However, even though Nepal is a multi-party democracy, the responsibility of preserving the democratic process and strengthening the republic lies primarily with the Nepali Congress and the UML. Nepalis are soon going to make their voices heard through the polls, and how they fare in the upcoming elections will determine the future of the country.

“India-Nepal ties must move beyond 1950 treaty”

<img width="800" height="506" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110161132/636d1a0e9c7e80680e0ac851jpeg.jpg" alt=""/>Even though Nepal’s political parties do not seem very keen for the moment to impeach controversial Chief Justice Cholendra SJB Rana, the mutiny against him is spreading among justices and lawyers.Chief Justice Rana’s alleged pressure on Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba to make his brother-in-law a minister earlier this month and other purported misdemeanours have halted proceedings in the Supreme Court as judges and lawyers go on the warpath.Things have got so volatile that on Friday lawyers for and against Rana had a fistfight outside the Nepal Bar Association as it was announcing an intensified agitation against the chief justice. A video clip of the scuffle went viral on Nepal’s social media.<blockquote>नेपाल बार अगाडि वकिलबीच कुटाकुट प्रधानन्यायाधीश चोलेन्द्र शमशेर जबराका समर्थक र विरोधी वकिलबीच शुक्रबार नेपाल बारभित्रै कुटाकुट भएको हो। <a href="https://t.co/lCX8qdJBNJ">pic.twitter.com/lCX8qdJBNJ</a>— Setopati (@setopati) <a href="https://twitter.com/setopati/status/1453995371030454272?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 29, 2021</a></blockquote> Video: SETOPATI/TWITTER<a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/what-is-happening-to-nepals-supreme-court/">What is happening to Nepal's Supreme Court?</a>, Santa Gaha MagarThe row over the chief justice has cast a spotlight on the transactional relationship between Nepal’s executive and judicial branches, and deliberate and blatant attempts by the political leadership and the chief justice to violate the principle of<a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/here-now/supreme-court-puts-nepal-politics-back-on-track/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> separation of powers</a>.Public and judicial outcry ensued after news emerged that the Chief Justice had <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/what-is-delaying-nepal-cabinet-expansion/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">demanded ministerial appointments</a> for two of his people as the coalition government was deliberating a much-delayed Cabinet expansion earlier this month.Deuba agreed to one cabinet position, appointing Rana’s brother-in-law Gajendra Hamal as the Industry, Commerce and Supplies Minister. Deuba and Rana both refuted allegations of bargaining, but not very convincingly. Even Deuba’s own party members said appointing Hamal was wrong.As the outrage spread, Hamal resigned less than 48 hours into his ministership, but this only added fuel to the fire as many saw it as an admission of the chief justice and the prime minister <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/opinion/quid-pro-quo/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">scratching each others’ backs</a>.To be sure, other members of the ruling five-party coalition have not shown much interest in registering an impeachment motion in Parliament against Rana. In fact, Parliament was conveniently prorogued on Friday, citing the opposition UML’s disruptions of proceedings. The UML’s K P Oli, who had to step down as prime minister after the Supreme Court ruled in July that his <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/nepal-supreme-court-restores-house/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">dissolution of the House</a> was unconstitutional, is also opposed to impeachment — saying that five other judges who passed that verdict should also resign.<a style="font-size: 15px; letter-spacing: 0.01em;" href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/old-wine-in-old-bottle-in-nepal-politics/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Old wine in old bottle in Nepal's politics</a>, Shristi KarkiFor the past week, justices and lawyers have been boycotting full court meetings called by Rana, as well as cases in the Supreme Court and other courts across Nepal, bringing the judicial process to a standstill. As it is, only the Chief Justice-led single bench has been conducting hearings at Nepal’s top court.On Friday, the Nepal Bar Association issued an ultimatum to Chief Justice Rana to resign by 3 November, otherwise, it would undertake escalating protests including further boycotts of hearings, preventing Rana from entering the Supreme Court premises and even street rallies.On Thursday, Rana repeated in an interview with BBC Nepali that he would not step down just because some justices were calling for it. “I was appointed through a constitutional process, and I can only be removed through a constitutional process,” said Rana, possible convinced that the political parties would not move to impeach him.However, second-tier leaders of the Nepali Congress on Friday issued a statement calling on their party to protect judicial independence, the rule of law and separation of powers. ‘The Nepali Congress cannot remain silent in the controversy involving the chief justice when there is so much opposition to him from within the Supreme Court and the legal system,’ the statement by 12 NC members including Gagan Thapa, Sarita Prasai, and Dhanaraj Gurung said.And as Chief Justices, current justices on the court, as well as the Nepal Bar Association and the Supreme Court Bar Association called on the Chief Justice to step down, <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/nepal-govt-fills-cabinet-after-3-months/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Deuba and his coalition partners</a> have stayed silent on the matter, privately hoping that Rana will resign and take the decision out of their hands.Rana, who was appointed Nepal’s top judge by the KP Oli government in 2019, has remained steadfast in his refusal to resign unless the four other justices of the five-member bench that reinstated the parliament dissolved by Oli and appointed Deuba Prime Minister resigned along with him. The four other justices are Deepak Karki, Mira Khadka, Ishwor Khatiwada, and Ananda Mohan Bhattarai.Instead, Rana has said that he is ready to face the constitutional process, daring the coalition to file an impeachment motion.Every politician and party has a reason not to anger Chief Justice Rana at present. A hearing against Madhav Kumar Nepal and Baburam Bhattarai for their alleged involvement in the Lalita Niwas land ownership case is due on 1 November.Similarly, K P Oli has also filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court against Speaker Agni Sapkota over his refusal to expel then-UML lawmakers as well as against the Election Commission over Madhav Kumar Nepal’s registration of his new party. Sapkota, who is a Maoist, himself also has a war crime case against him pending in court.<a style="font-size: 15px; letter-spacing: 0.01em;" href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/nepals-post-breakup-politics/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Nepal's post-breakup politics</a>, Santa Gaha MagarMany see Nepal’s recent political and judicial developments as the beginning of the end of the separation of powers within Nepal’s branches of government.In March 2013, following its failure to draft the Constitution after two-term extensions, Nepal’s Constitutional Assembly was dissolved. Subsequently, Nepal’s political parties, seeking a ‘neutral party’ to oversee the next CA elections, <a href="http://archive.nepalitimes.com/blogs/thebrief/2013/03/14/regmi-sworn-in-2/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">appointed Khil Raj Regmi</a>,  who was then Nepal’s Chief Justice, as the chairman of the council of ministers. Regmi led a caretaker government and presided over the 2013 elections, and <a href="http://archive.nepalitimes.com/blogs/thebrief/2014/02/11/khil-raj-regmi-resigns-as-cj/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">resigned after the elections in February 2014</a>.In hindsight, this was a watershed moment for the erosion of the separation of powers within Nepal’s executive and judicial branches.In 2017, an<a href="http://archive.nepalitimes.com/blogs/thebrief/2017/05/01/lady-justice/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> impeachment motion </a>was filed against <a href="https://archive.nepalitimes.com/article/interview/a-woman-is-as-capable-sushila-karki,3375" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Chief Justice Sushila Karki</a> by the coalition government of the NC and the Maoists, who accused her of interfering with executive decisions after Justice Karki overturned the government’s choice for Nepal’s Chief of Police.Expert and public consensus at the time was that the impeachment served to intimidate the judiciary and Karki, who was noted for her integrity, independence and <a href="http://archive.nepalitimes.com/article/from-nepali-press/I-will-not-spare-the-corrupt,3156" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">aggressive stance on corruption</a>.Karki was reinstated after the single bench of Justice Rana issued an order against the impeachment motion.Rana’s tenure has not been without controversy, with the Chief Justice having come under scrutiny for reducing sentences of convicted murderers, acquitting individuals charged with corruption and manipulating favourable benches as favours to businessmen and politicians.Indeed, the controversy has also brought to light the practice of ‘bench buying’ in the Supreme Court, which Rana has been accused of facilitating. The decision on which cases have which benches assigned is so rife with corruption that bench-selection has become a money-making scam.An independent judiciary is the foundation of a functioning democracy and ensures that the branches of government operate within a system of checks and balances. But the controversy surrounding the Chief Justice, much more blatant than previous misgivings from within Nepal’s judiciary, has exposed the long-standing quid pro quo relationship between Nepal’s executive and judicial branches.Read also: <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/banner/non-government-of-nepal/">Non-government of Nepal</a>, Sonia Awale

Nepal’s lawyers on warpath against Chief Justice

<figure><img width="1040" height="550" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110151112/636d06c39c7e80680e0a5f80jpeg.jpg" alt=""/><figcaption>Nepali Congress leader Sher Bahadur Deuba will become prime minister for the fifth time on Tuesday. Photo: RSS</figcaption></figure>For many, the Supreme Court’s restoration on Monday of Nepal’s Parliament for the second time after it was dissolved by Prime Minister K P Oli was a foregone conclusion. What was unexpected was that the apex court also ordered Sher Bahadur Deuba of the Nepali Congress to succeed Oli as prime minister.And probably the person most surprised by that decision was Deuba himself.After all, the Constitutional Bench led by Chief Justice Cholendra JB Rana could not have given a different verdict than the one he gave in February when Oli dissolved the Lower House for the first time. But most commentators had felt that ruling on a strictly political matter of who should be prime minister, was a matter for Parliament and beyond the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.Chief Justice Rana and his bench obviously did not think so. Since the two demands (restoring the House and naming Deuba PM) were part of the <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/editorial/parliamentary-whiplash/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">writ petitions filed in the courts by an alliance of anti-Oli parties</a>, he could not logically accept one while rejecting the other.The Court ordered that Deuba be installed as prime minister by 5pm on Tuesday, and for the House to be reconvened within one week. It also ruled that the 23 UML members who added their signatures to the petition against their own party should not be disciplined, which was also a claim in one of the writs. Deuba along with 146 MPs from his own party, with those from the Maoist Centre as well dissident factions of the JSP and the UML had filed the writ on 24 May, soon after President Bidya Bhandar rejected the claim by both the alliance and Oli that they had the majority in the House to form the next government.The Consitutitonal Bench had heard arguments by both the petitioners as well as government lawyers about whether it was the party whip or the individual member’s right to vote during a floor test in the House. Clearly, the Bench felt that MPs were free to vote of their own free will and did not have to always obey the party line.    <figure><img width="1200" height="700" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110151112/636d06c59c7e80680e0a5f81jpeg.jpg" alt=""><figcaption>The Constitutional Bench made up of Chief Justice Cholendra JB Rana and justices Dipak Kumar Karki, Mira Khadka, Ishwar Khatiwada and Anandamohan Bhattarai.</figcaption></figure>Besides Rana, the Constitutional Bench was made up of justices selected on the basis of seniority including Dipak Kumar Karki, Mira Khadka, Ishwar Khatiwada and Anandamohan Bhattarai.Monday’s decision on the restoration of the House was expected, but few had thought the Supreme Court would go all the way to nominate Deuba and stop any action against the 23 UML dissidents.Taken together the three decisions represent a big setback for Oli, who had been holding on to power despite a mutiny within the former NCP party from an alliance of Pushpa Kamal Dahal Nepal, and later in his own UML.<a style="background-color: #ffffff; font-size: 15px; letter-spacing: 0.01em;" href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/banner/court-debates-nepal-pm-olis-future/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Oli had used every trick in the book</a>, from divide and rule, getting members to defect from rival parties, dissolving Parliament and immediately after that staking claims to leadership.He was even working on a fall-back option till Monday morning in case the Supreme Court decided to restore the House. He had been trying to woo back the Nepal faction into the UML so that even if the House was restored, he could try for another majority in a month.Negotiators from both sides in a working group had come up with a 10-point deal to patch up differences between Oli and Nepal. But the Court decision has thrown that pact in the air.The Court decidedly did not agree that the same person could keep claiming to have a majority, and failing, every time. In fact, Oli must have seen it coming because it had been overturning one by one his increasingly desperate moves to remain in office right up to the court hearings on the <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/president-endorses-parliament-dissolution/">second dissolution</a> of the Lower House on <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/nepal-sets-elections-in-middle-of-pandemic/">22 May.</a> Petitioners presenting their arguments at Court’s Constitutional Bench last month did not just call for the restoration of the House and Deuba be made prime minister but directly blamed President Bidya Devi Bhandari for complicity with Oli. <figure><img width="960" height="640" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110151112/636d06c89c7e80680e0a5f82jpeg.jpg" alt=""><figcaption>Photos: AMIT MACHAMASI</figcaption></figure><figure><img width="720" height="480" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110151112/636d06cb9c7e80680e0a5f83jpeg.jpg" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure><figure><img width="960" height="640" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110151112/636d06cc9c7e80680e0a5f84jpeg.jpg" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure><figure><img width="720" height="480" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110151112/636d06cf9c7e80680e0a5f85jpeg.jpg" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure><figure><img width="960" height="640" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110151112/636d06d19c7e80680e0a5f86jpeg.jpg" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure><figure><img width="960" height="640" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110151112/636d06d39c7e80680e0a5f87jpeg.jpg" alt=""><figcaption>Youth affiliated with the CPN-UML staged protests outside the Supreme Court against its verdict that guaranteed Sher Bahadur Deuba his fifth prime ministership.</figcaption></figure>The final verdict of the court marks the culmination of a prolonged power struggle between Oli and comrades within the UML and his former NCP that has lasted more than two years, and undermined one of the most powerful elected governments in Nepal’s democratic history.The NCP had nearly two-thirds majority in the House, but it was hobbled by a power struggle and ego-clash between Oli and the Dahal-Nepal combine. Governance was paralysed by uncertainty even as Nepal struggled with two deadly waves of the Covid-19 pandemic and lockdowns that has seriously damaged the economy.President Bidya Devi Bhandari’s <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/2-ex-pms-vie-to-be-nepal-pm/">rejection of Deuba’s claim</a> to lead the government two months ago had prompted 146 politicians from a five-party alliance to file writ petitions in the Supreme Court on 24 May. After dissolving the House following loss in a confidence vote on 21 May, Oli still staked his claim to form a government, showing he had support of all the members of the UML and JSP – even those who had voted with Deuba.President Bhandari used this to cast doubt on the legitimacy of both claims to form the government because they had counted the same MPs.On Tuesday, Sher Bahadur Deuba will become Nepal’s prime minister for the fifth time in 20 years. He has led the country through the reign of King Birendra, after King Gyanendra’s coup in 2005, as well as in interim governments after the peace accord in 2006.Deuba will have to prove that he has the confidence of the House within one month, after which he will head an election government. If he fails to get a majority, which is a possibility, there will be early polls in November – which was what Oli was preparing for.Like Deuba, other leaders of the anti-Oli alliance have also been prime ministers before: Pushpa Kamal Dahal (twice), <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/here-now/making-up-is-hard-to-do/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Madhav Kumar Nepal</a>, Jhalnath Khanal and Baburam Bhattarai.

Nepal Court orders Deuba to succeed Oli

<figure><img width="1123" height="768" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/2022111015118/636d06469c7e80680e0a5f53jpeg.jpg" alt=""/><figcaption>Illustration: SUBHAS RAI</figcaption></figure>We will finally know in 12 July the fate of the dissolved House, whether or not K P Oli stays on as prime minister, if Sher Bahadur Deuba becomes prime minister for the fifth time in 20 years, or if Nepalis have to vote in <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/nepal-sets-elections-in-middle-of-pandemic/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/nepal-sets-elections-in-middle-of-pandemic/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1625735264179000&amp;usg=AFQjCNFNesP84u5FYPCAE0JHQ7tGcH5vng">early elections in November.</a>After two weeks of deliberations, on 12 July the Supreme Court’s Constitutional bench is set to decide on writ petitions challenging Prime Minister Oli’s dissolution of the Lower House and President Bidya Devi Bhandari’s rejection of leadership bids by both Deuba and Oli on 21 May. Throughout the submissions by petitioners and government lawyers, depositions by the four members of the amicus curiae, as well as questions from the bench, the debate has boiled down to this: in a multi-party democracy, does the party whip have more legitimacy in a floor test than a non-party individual vote?Can MPs from a ruling party seeking a confidence vote side against it, and even back the candidacy of an opposition leader to replace their own prime minister? There were spirited arguments by lawyers from both sides. The petitioners went beyond censuring Oli to accuse President Bhandari of complicity and failing in her duty to protect the Constitution from Oli’s ambition to cling on to power.Both Oli and his main challenger, former prime minister Madhav Kumar Nepal, have claimed that their actions were constitutional, and it was the other side that is acting against its letter and spirit.The Constitutional Bench itself was formed last month on the basis of seniority by Chief Justice Cholendra SJB Rana and includes Justices Dipak Kumar Karki, Anand Mohan Bhattarai, Mira Dhungana, Ishwar Prasad Khatiwada. We have no way of guessing which argument the individual justices will favour, but if <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/banner/court-debates-nepal-pm-olis-future/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nepalitimes.com/banner/court-debates-nepal-pm-olis-future/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1625735264179000&amp;usg=AFQjCNF0IeOBH-TePa8tjGto_qMFeokPBw">some of its recent judgements</a> overturning Prime Minister Oli’s moves one by one are anything to go by, they may also restore the dissolved House on Monday.If you remember, after Prime Minister Oli got president Bhandari to dissolve the House for the second time on 21 May, Deuba of the Nepali Congress, Pushpa Kamal Dahal of the Maoist Centre and dissidents from Oli’s own UML and the JSP gathered 149 signatures to stake a claim to form the new government.Oli got wind of this, and also claimed majority support with all 122 members of his own party and 31 from the JSP, even though rebel factions from both parties had sided with the Deuba-led alliance. President Bhandari <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/2-ex-pms-vie-to-be-nepal-pm/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/2-ex-pms-vie-to-be-nepal-pm/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1625735264179000&amp;usg=AFQjCNF6K9hFkxrMWBCiMeBy80xmpn1pHg">rejected both claims</a> saying two groups <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/2-ex-pms-vie-to-be-nepal-pm/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/2-ex-pms-vie-to-be-nepal-pm/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1625735264179000&amp;usg=AFQjCNF6K9hFkxrMWBCiMeBy80xmpn1pHg">cannot claim a majority.</a> This prompted the politicians from the five-party alliance to file a slew of petitions in the Supreme Court on 24 May, not just challenging the dissolution of the house but also asking that Deuba be declared prime minister.The fact that the judiciary has to decide on who should be prime minister, which party has a majority in Parliament, shows just how dysfunctional Nepali politics has become. <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/here-now/making-up-is-hard-to-do/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nepalitimes.com/here-now/making-up-is-hard-to-do/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1625735264179000&amp;usg=AFQjCNEYXsPhx5Xoxk-1WeogNXgzFBU-5Q">Just because two members from the executive arm cannot get along</a>, they have blurred the separation of powers and dragged the judiciary in to pass a verdict on a matter that should have been decided by the people’s elected representatives in the legislature.On Monday, we will know if the House will remain dissolved and Oli will lead an election government till polls on 12 and 19 November, or if the President will once more call for members to show a majority in one month. Which is why some young turks in the UML have been desperately trying to <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/editorial/tried-tested-and-failed/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nepalitimes.com/editorial/tried-tested-and-failed/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1625735264179000&amp;usg=AFQjCNEPXE3v8n_CAmyJqoIXutEQ6l1DuQ">prevent the party from splitting</a> because either way it needs to be together to confront the opposition coalition. If the UML unites, no matter what the Supreme Court’s verdict, the opposition alliance will fall apart.A UML working group has been desperately trying to patch up differences between Oli and Nepal, which is mostly an ego-clash, but also involves compromises like Oli backtracking from his induction of 23 Maoist MPs into the UML Central Committee that diluted Nepal’s clout in the party. Nepal wants either the prime minister ship or party chair, which Oli has flatly rejected. The bargaining goes on at <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/banner/nepal-is-a-hotbed-of-virus-and-politics/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nepalitimes.com/banner/nepal-is-a-hotbed-of-virus-and-politics/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1625735264179000&amp;usg=AFQjCNFwzdLgJtcZp-xLj40y47gZymEdHg">great cost to governance</a> at a time when the country faces a pandemic, a disastrous monsoon and an economic crisis. Hopefully, by this time next week the Supreme Court verdict will show us a way out of this rigmarole.

Parliamentary whiplash

<figure><img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109121148/636b94129c7e80680e06f1dbjpeg.jpg" alt="" width="1500" height="1000"/><figcaption>Illustration: DIWAKAR CHETTRI</figcaption></figure>Nepal’s Supreme Court has been overturning Prime Minister K P Oli’s moves to remain in office one by one, even as it began crucial hearings on his <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/president-endorses-parliament-dissolution/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/president-endorses-parliament-dissolution/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1624615526031000&amp;usg=AFQjCNFcfwSAhJcN3o2YRfc09cycuI6fLg">second dissolution</a> of the Lower House on <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/nepal-sets-elections-in-middle-of-pandemic/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/nepal-sets-elections-in-middle-of-pandemic/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1624615526031000&amp;usg=AFQjCNGn9_SCp2XoTEVx1Y1q1wFMB0pVQQ">22 May.</a>Lawyers presenting their arguments at the Court’s Constitutional Bench on Wednesday and Thursday went beyond just <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/nepalis-outraged-by-pm-oli-move/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/nepalis-outraged-by-pm-oli-move/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1624615526031000&amp;usg=AFQjCNGyc7SBPAkNZ8daTmk8Xf4bMvaGpA">questioning Oli’s moves</a>, they blamed President Bidya Devi Bhandari for complicity.And beyond calling for a restoration of the House, they also demanded that Sher Bahadur Deuba of the Nepali Congress (NC) replace Oli, since he had amply demonstrated a majority in the House.The final battle in the court is the culmination of a long-drawn power struggle between Oli and comrades within the UML and his former NCP, even while the country faces an emergency with the coronavirus pandemic.President Bidya Devi Bhandari’s <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/2-ex-pms-vie-to-be-nepal-pm/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/2-ex-pms-vie-to-be-nepal-pm/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1624615526031000&amp;usg=AFQjCNEfhpSOMM9zO0aa-OOH9pv0unohLw">rejection of Deuba’s claim</a> to lead the government two months ago had prompted 146 politicians from a five-party alliance to file writ petitions in the Supreme Court on 24 May.<figure><img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109121148/636b94159c7e80680e06f1dcjpeg.jpg" alt="" width="1698" height="1272"><figcaption> </figcaption></figure>Chief Justice Cholendra SJB Rana and Justices Deep Kumar Karki, Mira Khadka, Iswar Prasad Khatiwada and Ananda Mohan Bhattarai will give a final verdict after a stipulated 32 hours of hearings over the next two weeks.That ruling will determine whether the House is reinstated and if Deuba becomes prime minister for the fifth time, or if Oli continues as prime minister to oversee early elections in November. If the House is reinstated, the five-party alliance could also choose some other prime minister.Like Deuba, other leaders of the anti-Oli alliance have also been prime ministers before: Pushpa Kamal Dahal (twice), Madhav Kumar Nepal, Jhalnath Khanal and Baburam Bhattarai.The signs do not look good for Oli whose latest setback was the Supreme Court’s decision on Tuesday reversing his <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/nepal-government-reshuffle-during-pandemic/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/nepal-government-reshuffle-during-pandemic/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1624615526031000&amp;usg=AFQjCNEucL_TDQmSld75IHcEemzl7UaY9g">appointment of 20 ministers</a>earlier this month, saying it was unconstitutional for a caretaker prime minister to do so.In fact, Water Supply Minister Anil Jha of the JSP was being welcomed in his constituency in Rautahat on Tuesday when word came from Kathmandu that the Court had directed all Cabinet ministers to stop working. And in a show of defiance, Oli told deposed ministers they didn’t need to vacate their official residence because “something will come up”.In the midst of a pandemic, Nepal's governing Cabinet is now down to Oli and four ministers. The third health minister in a year was among the 20 who had to step down this week after just 19 days in office.The five-party opposition alliance decided to put pressure on Oli by launching street protests starting on Thursday. Speaking to a gathering of editors on Thursday, the NC's Deuba said: "The prime minister and president colluded at midnight to dismantle democracy and the constitution, that is why we have formed this alliance. We will mobilise the public if needed, to fight against a return to authoritarianism."<figure><img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109121148/636b94189c7e80680e06f1ddjpeg.jpg" alt="" width="720" height="480"><figcaption> </figcaption></figure><img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109121148/636b941a9c7e80680e06f1dejpeg.jpg" alt="" width="960" height="640"><img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109121148/636b941d9c7e80680e06f1dfjpeg.jpg" alt="" width="960" height="642">Last week, the Supreme Court overturned a Cabinet decision to amend national park regulations so that Yeti Holdings got a license to build a hydroelectric plant in Langtang. The Court also over-ruled an attempt by Oli to allow ministers to automatically become ambassadors, without having to be graduates. Then, Oli’s loyalist chief minister in the UML was voted out of the Gandaki provincial government last week by a coalition of opposition parties.At the Constitutional Bench, the petitioners and the government’s defence lawyers have been allocated 15 hours each to present their case, after which four lawyers from an amicus curiae will be given two hours to give their opinion.Central to the argument will be whether President Bhandari was fair in rejecting claims by both Deuba and Oli that they had a majority in the House to form a new government. On 21 May, Oli claimed he had the support of a majority in the House that he had himself dissolved earlier, by counting the total membership of his own UML and the Janata Samajbadi Party (JSP) — even those in both parties who had defected to Deuba’s camp.Deuba presented President Bhandari with 149 actual signatures of MPs from the NC, Maoist Centre (MC) and dissidents from the UML and JSP. Only 136 votes are needed for a majority based on the current House strength.On Wednesday and Thursday, petitioners at the Constitutional Bench argued that Article 76 (5) of the Constitution clearly stated that if a prime minister cannot demonstrate he has the confidence of the House, the president has to call on any member who can do so to form the next government.Firebrand lawyer Sambhu Thapa argued: “Why does the president require any other proof other than the 149 signatures? Who gave the president the authority to choose her own prime minister, or take away the right of House members to vote? This is a right that was earned after a long political struggle.”<figure><img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109121148/636b941f9c7e80680e06f1e0jpeg.jpg" alt="" width="960" height="640"><figcaption> </figcaption></figure><img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109121148/636b94229c7e80680e06f1e1jpeg.jpg" alt="" width="960" height="642"><img src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109121148/636b94249c7e80680e06f1e2jpeg.jpg" alt="" width="960" height="640">Last week President Bhandari’s office responded to a show cause from the Court with a written explanation that the <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/nepal-supreme-court-restores-house/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/nepal-supreme-court-restores-house/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1624615526031000&amp;usg=AFQjCNHluN7S9Tlzf7kz7vsDIVxJidoQig">Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction</a> over the Office of the President. The President’s advisers have said that she took the decision to dissolve the House because the support of some MPs was claimed by both Deuba and Oli.In his clarification letter to the Supreme Court, Oli argued that the Court had no role in a purely political matter.In Thursday’s Constitutional Bench hearings, former attorney general Raman Shrestha argued that the President was claiming a right over the Supreme Court similar to what Nepal’s kings had during the monarchy days.“This debate in the Court is not about Oli or Deuba becoming prime minister, it is about whether a Constitution drafted by an elected Constituent Assembly will remain or not,” Shrestha said.Another lawyer Badri Bahadur Karki argued that a decision on whether Deuba had a majority support of the House or not was not up to the president. “The president invoking Article 76(5) was for the formation of an alternative government, not to reinstate the same government,” Karki argued, adding in English, “the president should have told Oli, you are no more prime minister.”Oli, who has survived many earlier cliffhangers, probably expects the Supreme Court to reinstate the House, and he is planning to demonstrate a majority by <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/here-now/nepal-pm-oli-back-on-saddle/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nepalitimes.com/here-now/nepal-pm-oli-back-on-saddle/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1624615526031000&amp;usg=AFQjCNEA1z9mRfljFFGu7HLVClQWlwriyg">wooing back dissident UML MP</a>s and the JSP floor test. Oli will need at least 114 of the total 121 members of the UML as well as at least 20 from the Mahanta Thakur faction of the JSP <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/banner/parliamentary-arithmetics/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nepalitimes.com/banner/parliamentary-arithmetics/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1624615526031000&amp;usg=AFQjCNFHTBsAGOKmQ3mM0AWKIqW3ykM03w">to prove a House majority</a>.However, the tenor of the court hearings this week prove that they will not be satisfied with the restoration of the House — they want President Bhandari’s decision to disqualify Deuba’s claim to be prime minister revoked.

Oli's gambit

<figure><img width="960" height="640" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109111148/636b86329c7e80680e067839jpeg.jpg" alt=""/><figcaption>All photos: AMIT MACHAMASI</figcaption></figure>An alliance of five political parties and factions opposed to Prime Minister K P Oli’s <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/nepal-sets-elections-in-middle-of-pandemic/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">dissolution of the House and call for early elections </a>have approached the Supreme Court with a writ petition to have the move overturned. The five who went to the Supreme Court on Monday included the Nepali Congress (NC), Maoist Centre (MC), the Yadav-Bhattarai faction of the Janata Samajbadi Party (JSP) and dissidents from Oli’s own UML, as well as the 146 signatories.PM Oli's UML immediately evicted 11 rebel members including Madhav Kumar Nepal, Jhalnath Khanal and Bhim Rawal from the party, and asked 12 others for a clarification within 24 hours. The writ petition asks the Court to rule that since Sher Bahadur Deuba of the NC had <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/2-ex-pms-vie-to-be-nepal-pm/">staked his claim</a> to form the new government with a majority in Parliament, he should be appointed prime minister. It also asks that since the House dissolution was un-constitutional, it should be reinstated. All signatories from the five groups were present at the Court to register the petition, led by Deuba, MC Chair Pushpa Kamal Dahal, UML’s Madhav Kumar Nepal and JSP’s Upendra Yadav, and Durga Poudel of the Janmorcha. However, only 23 of the 26 who were originally with the Nepal faction signed. <img width="960" height="640" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109111148/636b86359c7e80680e06783ajpeg.jpg" alt="">Meanwhile, the main JSP led by Mahanta Thakur and Rajendra Mahato has decided to join K P Oli’s election government after being assured of seven ministerial portfolios. The party took the decision after the Cabinet got President Bhandari’s seal of approval on an ordinance passing a bill that would grant citizenship by descent to children of Nepali parents — a long-standing demand of the Mahdesi community.Although Oli and his party had vehemently opposed the bill last year, saying that it would allow Indians to marry Nepalis and for their children to be citizens, it appears that he has agreed to it now to save his government. The other JSP demand for the release of MP Resham Chaudhary, who has been detained for the massacre of policemen Tikapur in August 2015, has not yet been met.The latest political crisis in Nepal in the middle of a raging Covid-19 second wave started when President Bidya Devi Bhandari gave parties in Parliament 21 hours on Wednesday to stake their claim to form the next government because Prime Minister Oli said he could not get majority support from MPs.  <img width="720" height="480" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109111148/636b86389c7e80680e06783bjpeg.jpg" alt=""><img width="640" height="427" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109111148/636b863a9c7e80680e06783cjpeg.jpg" alt=""><img width="960" height="641" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109111148/636b863c9c7e80680e06783djpeg.jpg" alt=""><img width="750" height="500" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109111148/636b86409c7e80680e06783ejpeg.jpg" alt=""><img width="720" height="480" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109111148/636b86429c7e80680e06783fjpeg.jpg" alt="">However, after the NC, MC and the JSP and UML factions collected 149 signatures, Oli rushed to Shital Niwas to put forward support of all members of his UMl and the JSP, even the ones who had sides with the opposition coalition. This was seen by many as a violation of the constitution.President Bhandari on Saturday 2AM dissolved Parliament and called fresh elections in November, because she said neither side had fulfilled the requirement to form a new government.In the past two days, the prime minister and president have come under blistering attack from not just the opposition, but a cross section of civil society and media commentators. The student wing of the NC has been staging small protests in the capital despite the lockdown, burning Prime Minister Oli and President Bhandari in effigy.  <figure><img width="960" height="637" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109111148/636b86449c7e80680e067840jpeg.jpg" alt=""><figcaption>A student group trying to burn the prime minister and president in effigy were apprehended by police on Sunday. Photo: Amit Machamasi</figcaption></figure>Nepali Times discussed recent political developments with Nepal’s politicians. <img width="113" height="164" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109111148/636b86479c7e80680e067841jpeg.jpg" alt=""><h2>"There was no choice but to dissolve parliament" Niru Pal, CPN (UML)</h2> PM Oli was not able to get a vote of confidence per article 76 (4) of the constitution, and as such, Parliament was not able to come up with a solution. The opposition had been setting up constant roadblocks against PM Oli, all the while failing to establish a majority to form a government. Consequently, a government could not be formed as per Article 76 (5) of the Constitution either. We got word that MPs from our party had signed in favour of Sher Bahadur Deuba to become prime minister as if this were an independent political system. However, 11 of them have issued a statement alleging misuse of signatures. Therefore the government had no choice but to dissolve Parliament.I find some absurd and unnecessary criticism of PM Oli. Those critics are also well aware that the President is not an executive, and had no grounds to block the recommendation of the caretaker Prime Minister. The President would have made the same decision even if it were Sher Bahadur Deuba in PM Oli’s position. She has decided based on the spirit of the constitution. <h2>"An Oli-led election will self-destruct" Ganesh Shah, Maoist Centre</h2> PM Oli’s loyalists and his opponents have become polarised. The opposition was unable to take unified and effective action against PM Oli’s unconstitutional move, which is the result of his ambition and arrogance. The first parliament dissolution was a blow to our Constitution, but this dissolution might be its death knell.  <img width="172" height="248" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109111148/636b86489c7e80680e067842jpeg.jpg" alt="">Civil society and the backers of the Constitution and democracy must fight against this political regression with a unified front. The legal process will not be enough — Parliament must be re-established through political initiative. The chances of an election taking place are slim. Moreover, an election under Oli’s leadership will be self-destructive. Any election at this point must be held only after a re-instated Parliament elects a new Prime Minister. <img width="170" height="246" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109111148/636b86499c7e80680e067843jpeg.jpg" alt=""><h2>"The PM always wanted to dissolve parliament" Rachana Khadka, CPN (UML)</h2> PM Oli always wanted to dissolve parliaments and he did — twice.  Even after the Supreme Court reinstated the lower House in January, all of his recent political moves showed he was going to do it again. The decision to dissolve a Parliament in which he once held a majority is ironic. It goes against the spirit of the Constitution.Moreover, the legitimacy of the President’s office has also come into question. We have a system of checks and balances to ensure that our political institutions hold one another accountable if mistakes are made. As such, the office of the President does not exist to do the prime minister’s bidding.Hundreds of Nepalis are dying due to Covid-19 every day. The primary focus at this time should have been to save lives. Dissolving the parliament at a time like this is like dancing over the pyres of Nepalis. The state elections in India contributed to the spread of the virus over there. We should have learned our lesson from our neighbours. <h2>"Parliament dissolution is constitutional" Ashok Vyanju, President, Municipal Association</h2> This is the result of the inability of a democratically elected institution to facilitate nation-building, inter-political coordination and balance. The dissolution of Parliament and announcement of elections came after it was not possible to form a government constitutionally. The decision is therefore absolutely constitutional. The election will  make it possible to pursue a fresh mandate after our political problems are resolved. <img width="149" height="215" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109111148/636b864a9c7e80680e067844jpeg.jpg" alt="">Some have wrongly questioned the possibility of an election during a pandemic. India, South Korea, Japan, and other countries successfully conducted elections in the middle of the pandemic. We must be able to combat the virus and resolve our political problems simultaneously. <img width="176" height="250" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109111148/636b864b9c7e80680e067845jpeg.jpg" alt=""><h2>"Legal and political measures must be followed" Dila Sangroula, Nepali Congress</h2> The incumbent Prime Minister had to take a vote of confidence within 30 days or resign as per article 76 (3) of the constitution. Even then, the NC, MC, and JSP coalition along with the Nepal faction of the UML had collected 149 signatures to form a new government following the president’s directive.However, the signatures to appoint Sher Bahadur Deuba the Prime Minister were considered illegitimate. The subsequent decision to dissolve parliament at midnight was unconstitutional, undemocratic and reactionary. Legal and political countermeasures must be pursued to undo it.The announcement of mid-term elections during a pandemic, when Nepalis are dying due to a scarcity of oxygen and ventilators, is nothing but a political drama staged by Oli in an attempt to hold on to power.  Why are we enabling this instead of trying to save lives? <h2>"A free and fair election must be ensured" Mohan Shrestha, RPP</h2> The two major Communist parties failed to deliver on the promises made when they were elected into government. NC and RPP are not to blame for their failure. As such, it is better to go to the polls than to continue like this. All of our political parties should establish an understanding as we move forward, and a free and fair election must be ensured. <img width="117" height="168" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109111148/636b864c9c7e80680e067846jpeg.jpg" alt="">We are in favour of the election, and an official statement from the RPP will come soon. However, we have no involvement in the polarised politics on both sides, and will not participate in any anti-Oil protests. West Bengal and the United States conducted elections during the pandemic. We must follow all safety protocols pertaining to the pandemic and do the same.  <img width="318" height="376" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221109111148/636b864d9c7e80680e067847jpeg.jpg" alt=""><h2>"We must form a new party" Asta Laxmi Shakya, CPN (UML)</h2> After the Supreme Court overturned the NCPO, we came back to UML. But (PM Oli) did not give us any importance. He is still ignoring us. We cannot rely on Oli, we have to forge a new path. We have to form a new party, and not prolong this uncertainty.

Political ball now in Nepal’s Supreme Court

<figure><img width="960" height="640" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110131124/636cee429c7e80680e09ae16jpeg.jpg" alt=""/><figcaption>All photos: AMIT MACHAMASI</figcaption></figure>An alliance of five political parties and factions opposed to Prime Minister K P Oli’s <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/nepal-sets-elections-in-middle-of-pandemic/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">dissolution of the House and call for early elections </a>have approached the Supreme Court with a writ petition to have the move overturned. The five who went to the Supreme Court on Monday included the Nepali Congress (NC), Maoist Centre (MC), the Yadav-Bhattarai faction of the Janata Samajbadi Party (JSP) and dissidents from Oli’s own UML, as well as the 146 signatories.PM Oli's UML immediately evicted 11 rebel members including Madhav Kumar Nepal, Jhalnath Khanal and Bhim Rawal from the party, and asked 12 others for a clarification within 24 hours. The writ petition asks the Court to rule that since Sher Bahadur Deuba of the NC had <a href="https://www.nepalitimes.com/latest/2-ex-pms-vie-to-be-nepal-pm/">staked his claim</a> to form the new government with a majority in Parliament, he should be appointed prime minister. It also asks that since the House dissolution was un-constitutional, it should be reinstated. All signatories from the five groups were present at the Court to register the petition, led by Deuba, MC Chair Pushpa Kamal Dahal, UML’s Madhav Kumar Nepal and JSP’s Upendra Yadav, and Durga Poudel of the Janmorcha. However, only 23 of the 26 who were originally with the Nepal faction signed. <img width="960" height="640" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110131124/636cee449c7e80680e09ae17jpeg.jpg" alt="">Meanwhile, the main JSP led by Mahanta Thakur and Rajendra Mahato has decided to join K P Oli’s election government after being assured of seven ministerial portfolios. The party took the decision after the Cabinet got President Bhandari’s seal of approval on an ordinance passing a bill that would grant citizenship by descent to children of Nepali parents — a long-standing demand of the Mahdesi community.Although Oli and his party had vehemently opposed the bill last year, saying that it would allow Indians to marry Nepalis and for their children to be citizens, it appears that he has agreed to it now to save his government. The other JSP demand for the release of MP Resham Chaudhary, who has been detained for the massacre of policemen Tikapur in August 2015, has not yet been met.The latest political crisis in Nepal in the middle of a raging Covid-19 second wave started when President Bidya Devi Bhandari gave parties in Parliament 21 hours on Wednesday to stake their claim to form the next government because Prime Minister Oli said he could not get majority support from MPs.  <img width="720" height="480" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110131124/636cee469c7e80680e09ae18jpeg.jpg" alt=""><img width="640" height="427" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110131124/636cee489c7e80680e09ae19jpeg.jpg" alt=""><img width="960" height="641" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110131124/636cee4a9c7e80680e09ae1ajpeg.jpg" alt=""><img width="750" height="500" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110131124/636cee4c9c7e80680e09ae1bjpeg.jpg" alt=""><img width="720" height="480" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110131124/636cee4f9c7e80680e09ae1cjpeg.jpg" alt="">However, after the NC, MC and the JSP and UML factions collected 149 signatures, Oli rushed to Shital Niwas to put forward support of all members of his UMl and the JSP, even the ones who had sides with the opposition coalition. This was seen by many as a violation of the constitution.President Bhandari on Saturday 2AM dissolved Parliament and called fresh elections in November, because she said neither side had fulfilled the requirement to form a new government.In the past two days, the prime minister and president have come under blistering attack from not just the opposition, but a cross section of civil society and media commentators. The student wing of the NC has been staging small protests in the capital despite the lockdown, burning Prime Minister Oli and President Bhandari in effigy.  <figure><img width="960" height="637" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110131128/636cee519c7e80680e09ae1djpeg.jpg" alt=""><figcaption>A student group trying to burn the prime minister and president in effigy were apprehended by police on Sunday. Photo: Amit Machamasi</figcaption></figure>Nepali Times discussed recent political developments with Nepal’s politicians. <img width="113" height="164" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110131128/636cee549c7e80680e09ae1ejpeg.jpg" alt=""><h2>"There was no choice but to dissolve parliament" Niru Pal, CPN (UML)</h2> PM Oli was not able to get a vote of confidence per article 76 (4) of the constitution, and as such, Parliament was not able to come up with a solution. The opposition had been setting up constant roadblocks against PM Oli, all the while failing to establish a majority to form a government. Consequently, a government could not be formed as per Article 76 (5) of the Constitution either. We got word that MPs from our party had signed in favour of Sher Bahadur Deuba to become prime minister as if this were an independent political system. However, 11 of them have issued a statement alleging misuse of signatures. Therefore the government had no choice but to dissolve Parliament.I find some absurd and unnecessary criticism of PM Oli. Those critics are also well aware that the President is not an executive, and had no grounds to block the recommendation of the caretaker Prime Minister. The President would have made the same decision even if it were Sher Bahadur Deuba in PM Oli’s position. She has decided based on the spirit of the constitution. <h2>"An Oli-led election will self-destruct" Ganesh Shah, Maoist Centre</h2> PM Oli’s loyalists and his opponents have become polarised. The opposition was unable to take unified and effective action against PM Oli’s unconstitutional move, which is the result of his ambition and arrogance. The first parliament dissolution was a blow to our Constitution, but this dissolution might be its death knell.  <img width="172" height="248" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110131128/636cee559c7e80680e09ae1fjpeg.jpg" alt="">Civil society and the backers of the Constitution and democracy must fight against this political regression with a unified front. The legal process will not be enough — Parliament must be re-established through political initiative. The chances of an election taking place are slim. Moreover, an election under Oli’s leadership will be self-destructive. Any election at this point must be held only after a re-instated Parliament elects a new Prime Minister. <img width="170" height="246" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110131128/636cee569c7e80680e09ae20jpeg.jpg" alt=""><h2>"The PM always wanted to dissolve parliament" Rachana Khadka, CPN (UML)</h2> PM Oli always wanted to dissolve parliaments and he did — twice.  Even after the Supreme Court reinstated the lower House in January, all of his recent political moves showed he was going to do it again. The decision to dissolve a Parliament in which he once held a majority is ironic. It goes against the spirit of the Constitution.Moreover, the legitimacy of the President’s office has also come into question. We have a system of checks and balances to ensure that our political institutions hold one another accountable if mistakes are made. As such, the office of the President does not exist to do the prime minister’s bidding.Hundreds of Nepalis are dying due to Covid-19 every day. The primary focus at this time should have been to save lives. Dissolving the parliament at a time like this is like dancing over the pyres of Nepalis. The state elections in India contributed to the spread of the virus over there. We should have learned our lesson from our neighbours. <h2>"Parliament dissolution is constitutional" Ashok Vyanju, President, Municipal Association</h2> This is the result of the inability of a democratically elected institution to facilitate nation-building, inter-political coordination and balance. The dissolution of Parliament and announcement of elections came after it was not possible to form a government constitutionally. The decision is therefore absolutely constitutional. The election will  make it possible to pursue a fresh mandate after our political problems are resolved. <img width="149" height="215" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110131128/636cee579c7e80680e09ae21jpeg.jpg" alt="">Some have wrongly questioned the possibility of an election during a pandemic. India, South Korea, Japan, and other countries successfully conducted elections in the middle of the pandemic. We must be able to combat the virus and resolve our political problems simultaneously. <img width="176" height="250" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110131128/636cee589c7e80680e09ae22jpeg.jpg" alt=""><h2>"Legal and political measures must be followed" Dila Sangroula, Nepali Congress</h2> The incumbent Prime Minister had to take a vote of confidence within 30 days or resign as per article 76 (3) of the constitution. Even then, the NC, MC, and JSP coalition along with the Nepal faction of the UML had collected 149 signatures to form a new government following the president’s directive.However, the signatures to appoint Sher Bahadur Deuba the Prime Minister were considered illegitimate. The subsequent decision to dissolve parliament at midnight was unconstitutional, undemocratic and reactionary. Legal and political countermeasures must be pursued to undo it.The announcement of mid-term elections during a pandemic, when Nepalis are dying due to a scarcity of oxygen and ventilators, is nothing but a political drama staged by Oli in an attempt to hold on to power.  Why are we enabling this instead of trying to save lives? <h2>"A free and fair election must be ensured" Mohan Shrestha, RPP</h2> The two major Communist parties failed to deliver on the promises made when they were elected into government. NC and RPP are not to blame for their failure. As such, it is better to go to the polls than to continue like this. All of our political parties should establish an understanding as we move forward, and a free and fair election must be ensured. <img width="117" height="168" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110131128/636cee599c7e80680e09ae23jpeg.jpg" alt="">We are in favour of the election, and an official statement from the RPP will come soon. However, we have no involvement in the polarised politics on both sides, and will not participate in any anti-Oil protests. West Bengal and the United States conducted elections during the pandemic. We must follow all safety protocols pertaining to the pandemic and do the same.  <img width="318" height="376" src="https://superdesk-pro-c.s3.amazonaws.com/sd-nepalitimes/20221110131128/636cee5a9c7e80680e09ae24jpeg.jpg" alt=""><h2>"We must form a new party" Asta Laxmi Shakya, CPN (UML)</h2> After the Supreme Court overturned the NCPO, we came back to UML. But (PM Oli) did not give us any importance. He is still ignoring us. We cannot rely on Oli, we have to forge a new path. We have to form a new party, and not prolong this uncertainty.