SC to hear writ by 143 lawmakers against House dissolution

KATHMANDU: The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a writ petition against the dissolution of the House of Representatives today (Wednesday), filed with the signatures of a clear majority of lawmakers.

The petition, submitted on Tuesday, bears the signatures of 143 members of the 275-member House of Representatives, including lawmakers from the Nepali Congress, CPN-UML, Janamat Party, Janata Samajbadi Party (JSP), and independent members.

In Nepal’s Parliament, at least 138 lawmakers are required to prove a majority for either government formation or dissolution.

The petitioners argue that the presence of 143 signatures demonstrates an unambiguous majority capable of forming a government if the House is reinstated.

They have therefore sought a mandamus order for the restoration of the House of Representatives and the initiation of a constitutional process to form a new government from within Parliament.

According to senior advocate and former Attorney General Khamba Bahadur Khati, the Supreme Court will hear earlier and newly filed petitions on the same subject together.

Previously, the Court had declined to issue interim orders on separate petitions filed by the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML.

The petitioners believe that the physical or representative presence of a majority of lawmakers this time will make it easier for the Court to reach a substantive verdict.

The supplementary writ filed on Tuesday includes signatures from 65 Nepali Congress lawmakers, 75 from the CPN-UML, two from the Janata Samajbadi Party (Ashok Rai faction), and one independent lawmaker.

The CPN-UML had earlier submitted the signatures of its 75 lawmakers following a formal party decision.

Additional signatories in favor of reinstatement include JSP lawmaker Hasina Khan, Janamat Party lawmaker Goma Labh Sapkota, and independent lawmaker Yogendra Mandal.

The petitioners have also challenged the appointment of former Chief Justice Sushila Karki as Prime Minister, arguing that her appointment—made in the wake of the ‘Gen-Z’ movement on Bhadra 23 and 24—was unconstitutional.

They have demanded that the appointment be annulled and that a new Prime Minister be selected through parliamentary procedures following the restoration of the House.