KATHMANDU: A Constitutional Bench of Nepal's Supreme Court hearing petitions against the dissolution of the House of Representatives has refused to entertain any further arguments on its composition, saying the issues raised by the petitioners are of grave public concern and require to be sorted out without delay.
President Bidya Devi Bhandari, at the recommendation of Prime Minister K P Sharma Oli, had dissolved the House for the second time in five months on May 22 and announced snap elections on November 12 and November 19.
Prime Minister Oli is heading a minority government after losing a trust vote in the House.
Chief Justice Cholendra Shumser Rana constituted the bench to hear the cases on May 28.
But the hearing was postponed after questions were asked about the presence of Justices Tej Bahadur KC and Bam Kumar Shrestha on the bench.
Chief Justice Rana on Sunday reconstituted the bench incorporating justices based on their seniority.
The new bench includes Justices Deepak Kumar Karki, Mira Khadka, Ishwar Khatiwada and Ananda Mohan Bhattarai as members.
But those defending Prime Minister Oli, including Attorney General Ramesh Badal, questioned the presence of Justices Karki and Bhattarai, thereby delaying the hearing of the politically significant case.
The bench on Wednesday took a strong position and refused to entertain any further arguments on its composition, the Kathmandu Post reported on Thursday.
The issues raised by the petitioners are of grave public concern and require to be sorted out without delay, reads the order.
Continuous hearing would start from June 23, it added.
As many as 30 writ petitions, including by the Opposition alliance, have been filed in the Supreme Court against the dissolution of the House, which they said was "unconstitutional".
The bench has also sought amici curiae briefs from two senior advocates each from the Nepal Bar Association and the Supreme Court Bar Association.
The bench has also adopted a strategy to shorten the hearing period by not allowing unlimited time for advocates to make their arguments, the paper said.
It has decided to allow 15 hours maximum to present argumentsto both sides.
Similarly, each amicus will get 30 minutes to present their arguments before the bench.
Experts on constitutional matters say, unlike the last time, the court appears to have attempted to take steps to systematise and streamline the hearing process.
The court has allocated adequate time, senior advocate Purna Man Shakya, also a professor at Nepal Law Campus, told the Post.
Its effort to systematise the hearing process is commendable.
After questions were raised over the bench composition, which directly meant casting doubts on justices, the judiciary had plunged into a crisis.
Chief Justice Rana was under pressure, as responsibility was on him to save the image of the judiciary, the report noted.
When the plan to amend the Supreme Court (Operation of Constitutional Bench) Regulations was rejected by the full court, calls were growing that Chief Justice Rana should make a strong move and stick to a bench that he reconstituted with the senior justices.
The bench on Wednesday also issued a show-cause notice to the Office of the President, the Office of the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers on the dissolution of the House of Representatives and sought a reply within 15 days.
Officials at the Supreme Court say that Wednesday's orders are indicative of a verdict very soonmost probably within a week after the hearing begins on June 23, the paper reported.
The directive to lawyers and the amici curiae to present their legal briefs by June 24, a day after the continuous hearing begins, indicates the court's intention to pass the verdict without delay, they say.
The orders on Wednesday came after hearing opening arguments from advocates pleading on behalf of the Opposition alliance.
The directives were issued on the petition filed by the 146 lawmakers from the dissolved House of Representatives, Kishor Paudel, a communication expert at the Supreme Court, told the Post.
The hearing on other 29 petitions filed as public interest litigation will begin after settling the petition filed by the Opposition alliance.
The petition by the Opposition alliance, led by Sher Bahadur Deuba, is also backed by 23 members from the Madhav Nepal faction of the CPN-UML.
The Opposition alliance, which has demanded the restoration of the House, has claimed that Deuba should have been appointed prime minister on May 21 when he went to the President with the signatures of 149 lawmakers.
However, Oli, who was appointed prime minister on May 13 after losing a vote of confidence just three days prior, had also laid claim to the government before the President, saying he had the backing of 153 lawmakers.
Oli's House dissolution recommendation on May 21 followed President Bhandari's notice that both Oli and Deuba's claims were insufficient.
The hearing on the writs related to House dissolution has been obstructed multiple times following the petitioners' and government lawyers' cycle of objections over the composition of justices in the Constitutional Bench claiming conflict of interest.
Nepal plunged into a political crisis on December 20 last year after President Bhandari dissolved the House and announced fresh elections on April 30 and May 10 at the recommendation of Prime Minister Oli, amidst a tussle for power within the ruling Nepal Communist Party (NCP).
In February, the apex court reinstated the dissolved House of Representatives, in a setback to embattled Prime Minister Oli who was preparing for snap polls.