Kathmandu. Though the CPN-UML Central Committee meeting on Monday decided to ask 22 lawmakers, including senior leader Madhav Kumar Nepal, for a 24-hour explanation, the process has not been taken forward yet.
According to a UML source, the correspondence was different even though he was asked for an explanation on the charge of violating the party's whip and giving a vote of confidence to Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba on July 19. According to the source, it is certain that action will be taken against the 22 MPs in a few days whether they submit their explanations or not.
The legal side of the action
The Political Parties Act 2073 has made provision for the concerned parties to take action and expel the lawmakers who have violated the whip. Article 89 of the constitution provides that a post is considered vacant if a party indicates that its MP has resigned. The UML has asked the lawmakers for clarification to complete the process.
In multi-party practice, the concept of a whip is considered to have evolved according to the principle that after winning an election as a candidate on the recommendation of a party, one should follow his instructions. But even in parliamentary practice, there is a debate as to which of the whips and the parliamentarians' discretion takes precedence.
Two strategies of the UML establishment: to remove him from the post of MP on the charge of violating the whip. Even if it is not possible, to release from the responsibility of the party, to remain an MP
The recent decision of the Supreme Court has also given the example of different countries and defended the discretionary rights of the parliamentarians saying that the whip will not be implemented in all issues. However, according to the legal provisions of Nepal, except for the practice of Article 76, Clause 5 of the Constitution, as defined by the last judgment, the violation of the whip by the lawmakers is still the legal basis for dismissal.
According to Article 32 of the Political Parties Act, if MPs violate the party's whip, the parliamentary party whip must send the details to his party's central committee. The Central Committee may remove such MPs by giving them a chance to clean up. Giving a chance to clean up is to ask for an explanation. The UML may have asked them for an explanation as the court may overturn such a decision if they take action without due process.
If necessary, the concerned party may form an inquiry committee. The Act provides that the Central Committee of a party dissatisfied with the explanation may expel the party from the party by disclosing the reasons and grounds.
'No action'
But as per the interpretation given by the Supreme Court on July 12, the issue of the party leader or party support is not binding in the government formation process under Article 76 (5) of the Constitution. Stating that party support was not mandatory in the process of forming the government as per Article 5, the Supreme Court had explained to the parliamentarians that action should not be taken against them for violating the whip.
At that time, the Supreme Court had also ordered the lawmakers not to prosecute for whip violation or defection for supporting Deuba. The Supreme Court had said, "Prohibition order shall be issued in the name of the candidates not to take any action against any member of the House of Representatives for expressing trust, support, expressing their opinion or vote."
According to the resignation process, if a party expels an MP from a party, that information must be sent to the Federal Parliament Secretariat and the Election Commission. This decision of the Supreme Court has been received by both these bodies.
If the UML takes action against 22 MPs and sends the letter to the Federal Parliament Secretariat, the Speaker will have to read out the vacancy in the House of Representatives. However, according to Article 5, the Speaker, who has already received the decision of the Supreme Court not to take action against a Member of Parliament for supporting the Prime Minister, may not inform the House of Representatives that the post is vacant. The Election Commission has also said that there is no possibility of filling up the vacancies of the parliamentarians.
Senior advocate Muktinarayan Pradhan told 22 lawmakers that no action could be taken against them for violating the whip. "The Supreme Court has clearly said that there is no party whip in this matter. That is why it is ridiculous for the UML to take action if it shows that reason, 'says Pradhan, who is opposed to the dissolution of the parliament. If action is taken based on voting for Deuba, it will be against the decision. Such action can be overturned by the court.
'Accounts Remaining'
According to a UML leader with a legal background, no explanation was sought for last Sunday's whip violation. "After the Supreme Court made it clear that no action would be taken on this issue, would we ask the same question again?" He said, 'There are other accounts left. No action has been taken on April 10. That is not to say that the Supreme Court should not take action.
Oli had tried to get a vote of confidence in the House of Representatives on April 10. The day before, the UML parliamentary party had instructed all lawmakers to vote in favor. Madhav Nepal's 28 lawmakers were absent from the House of Representatives meeting and did not vote for either party.
Although there is a legal facility to take action against them for whip violation, UML did not take immediate action. Because taking action against those MPs would have made it easier for Sher Bahadur Deuba of the opposition alliance to get a majority. UML may be trying to take action against those MPs now.
According to a lawyer close to the UML establishment, there is another way to take action against lawmakers who violate the whip. He says that no law or decision has stopped him from taking action on the responsibility of the party.
"They have two responsibilities, they should not be removed from the parliament. Has the decision prevented us from taking action on the party's responsibility? ' He said, "There is still an account of their whip violation on April 10. If that is not enough, the party will take action and release him from responsibility. You sit as an MP. '
According to him, the posts of the lawmakers remain the same after the action is taken within the party. He claimed that being a member of the party's parliamentary party would not be an obstacle.
