Kathmandu.
Three of the four Amicus Curiae debates are over. The fourth debate continues. Amicus Curiae senior advocate Komal Prasad Ghimire and Vasthi advocate Raghav Lal Vaidya have said that the decision would be constitutional as per Deuba's writ while another amicus curiae advocate Usha Malla Pathak said that the dissolution of the House of Representatives was constitutional and the writ petition of 146 should be rejected.
Pathak, who was selected by the Amicus Curiae on behalf of the Nepal Bar Association, said that the President has the right to reject the claim on the basis of a vote of confidence in Article 76, Clause 5 of the Constitution. He is of the opinion that even though it is not written in the constitution, the president has the privilege of being the guardian of the constitution.
On the other hand, Komal Prasad Ghimire, who was recommended by Amicus Curiae on behalf of the Supreme Bar Association, said that it was unconstitutional for a person who had lost a vote of confidence in Parliament to be re-appointed as the Prime Minister. He has opined that the dissolution of the House of Representatives is not constitutional.
Similarly, senior advocate Raghav Lal Vaidya lost the vote of confidence on the 27th. What is the way out for the Prime Minister? Questioning that, the President has given the opinion that he has not protected the constitution. Now another Amicus Curiae Prakash Bahadur KC is giving his opinion. As the debate is over today, a decision is likely to come today.
