Author : Hari Bansh Jha

Expert Speak Raisina Debates
Published on Feb 26, 2021
The entire course of national politics has changed with the advent of the Supreme Court’s verdict.
Nepal: Supreme Court’s verdict on dissolution of Parliament and the emerging situation

In its historic judgment, Nepal’s Supreme Court on 23rd February overturned Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli’s decision to dissolve Parliament as it was unconstitutional. As per the court’s verdict, Parliament was dissolved without exploring other avenues and that it intended to put the monetary burden on the people for fresh elections. With this development, all the decisions concerning political appointments or otherwise have been annulled as it did not have any legal base. Also, the government has asked to summon Parliament within 13 days, i.e. by 8th March.

The Supreme Court’s verdict regarding the dissolution of Parliament has been hailed by all the important quarters in the country, including the different political parties and civil society members. An impression has been created that the verdict was bold and impartial, and also that it restored people’s faith in the competence and independence of the judiciary.

With the split of the ruling Nepal Communist Party, none of the political parties has the majority of seats in the House.

However, the Court’s verdict has also generated new challenges in national politics. With the split of the ruling Nepal Communist Party (NCP), none of the political parties has the majority of seats in the House. As such, an environment of uncertainty has been created in Nepalese politics.

The pressure is mounting on Prime Minister Oli to resign on moral and political grounds on the issue of the Supreme Court’s verdict. But it is unlikely that he would do so without any compelling reasons. Indications are that he would face a no-confidence motion in Parliament in which his faction of NCP happens to be in minority.

In the House, out of 275 members, the NCP has 173 members. Because of the split in this party, it is not likely that its two factions would join hands and form a government again. Nevertheless, the possibility for these two factions to get together cannot outrightly be negated as they are not yet split in legal terms.

The pressure is mounting on Prime Minister Oli to resign on moral and political grounds on the issue of the Supreme Court’s verdict.

If at all Prime Minister Oli has to win a no-confidence motion in the House, he would have to garner the support of a minimum of 138 members. But if he fails to do that, he would have no other option left but to resign.

Presently, Prime Minister Oli’s faction of NCP has around 83 lawmakers on his side in the House, while the Dahal-Nepal faction of that party has 90 lawmakers. With 63 lawmakers, the Nepali Congress (NC) — the second-largest party in the House — has emerged as a virtual kingmaker. Any of the two factions of the NCP could form the government on the majoritarian principle with the support of the NC.

Alternatively, the NC with 63 lawmakers could join hands with Janata Samajbadi Party with 32 lawmakers, apart from the Dahal-Nepal faction of NCP with 90 lawmakers. In that case, this government might have 67 percent seats in Parliament.

In defence of his move, Prime Minister Oli stated that he was forced to dissolve Parliament as his opponents within the ruling party created hurdles in service delivery.

The political crisis in Nepal culminated when Prime Minister Oli dissolved Parliament on 20 December, 2020 prematurely as per Articles 85, 76 (1), and 76 (7) of the Nepalese Constitution. He also declared the date of mid-term polls to be on 30th April and 10th May this year. By doing so, he tried to upset the designs of his rival camp in the NCP led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal who wanted to unseat him from power. But due to this decision of Oli, the NCP was split into two factions — one led by Prime Minister Oli and the other by Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Madhav Kumar Nepal. Each of the two factions approached the Election Commission to register changes in the party structure and claimed to be the inheritor of the party.

In defence of his move, Prime Minister Oli stated that he was forced to dissolve Parliament as his opponents within the ruling party created hurdles in service delivery. He felt as if it was his inherent power to dissolve Parliament in the same way Prime Minister Boris Johnson of the United Kingdom did and declared snap polls using his prerogative right.

Ever since Parliament was dissolved, protests and rallies for and against its dissolution had become the routine of the day in Kathmandu and different parts of the country. Through such activities, an attempt was made by both the factions not only to intimidate the Supreme Court justices but also to influence its verdict.

Ever since Parliament was dissolved, protests and rallies for and against its dissolution had become the routine of the day in Kathmandu and different parts of the country.

Pushpa Kamal Dahal even threatened to launch violent agitations and encircle Singh Durbar, the citadel of power, and Baluwatar, the official residence of the Prime Minister, by amassing a million people, if the decision to dissolve Parliament was not withdrawn. He also appealed to both of Nepal’s neighbours, India and China, apart from the international community, to contribute to reinstating Parliament to strengthen the roots of federalism and democracy in the country.

Apart from the Prachand-Nepal faction of NCP, the Nepali Congress, Janata Samajbadi Party and Rastriya Prajatantra Party also opposed Prime Minister Oli’s move to dissolve Parliament. But those parties opposed the government independently and not by forming a joint front.

On the other hand, Prime Minister Oli was so confident of holding parliamentary elections that he frequently used to mention the achievements of his government in the last three years as if he was addressing the poll rally. Towards this end, the Election Commission of the country not only invited the representatives of the political parties to discuss the draft of the Code of Conduct of the elections but also asked the government for Nepali Rs. 7.79 billion to conduct the mid-term polls.

The Oli-led faction of NCP does not seem to be in the mood for reconciliation, which could lead to the beginning of an era of political instability in the country.

Now, suddenly, the entire course of national politics has changed with the advent of the Supreme Court’s verdict. In the given situation, the verdict is appreciable as it tried to pacify the opposition parties at least for the time being who were agitating against Prime Minister Oli’s move to dissolve Parliament. But then the political crisis is not yet over. The Oli-led faction of NCP does not seem to be in the mood for reconciliation, which could lead to the beginning of an era of political instability in the country. For this, no one but the communist government is responsible, which failed to give a new direction to the country, even at a time when it had close to a two-thirds majority in Parliament. Sooner or later, the country would have to seek a fresh mandate of the people to ensure long-term peace and stability.

The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.

Author

Hari Bansh Jha

Hari Bansh Jha

Hari Bansh Jha is a Visiting Fellow at ORF. Formerly a professor of economics at Nepal's Tribhuvan University, Hari Bansh’s areas of interest include, Nepal-China-India strategic ...

Read More +