The Prime Minister’s answer is based on arrogance: Vishwaprakash Sharma

Kathmandu, July 9 – Nepali Congress spokesperson Bishwaprakash Sharma has remarked that Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli has responded to the court on the basis of arrogance.

Stating that the right to interpret the constitution belongs to the Supreme Court, he claimed that it was arrogant for the Prime Minister to comment on the court ordering the constitution as unconstitutional.

Giving a brief response to News Agency Nepal on the written reply of Prime Minister Oli sent to the Supreme Court on Thursday, he argued that the ruling of the Supreme Court should be accepted by the ruling party, the government or the opposition.

He said, “The Prime Minister, while answering the court now, stood on the foundation of arrogance. The court has given him a message based on the constitution. Therefore, we are hopeful and confident that the decision to revive the constitution will come from the constitutional session by looking at the society from the angle of constitution, law and humanity. ‘

In a written reply to the Supreme Court on the issue of reshuffling the cabinet by the Prime Minister after the dissolution of the House of Representatives, he said that the order of the Supreme Court was unconstitutional.

Noting that Prime Minister Oli’s misleading and cautionary remarks were being made public in writing and orally, as in his reply to the Supreme Court, Sharma warned that the court’s order should be obeyed by all.

He said, “While the Prime Minister was replying to the Supreme Court in writing yesterday, he has said that the order is unconstitutional.” The constitution we have drafted gives the judiciary, not the chief executive, the right to interpret the constitution, and that method must be accepted by the opposition and the government. ”

While advocating that the party could not protect the provision in Article 76 (5) of the constitution, the parliamentarians could protect the parliament.

He said, ‘The Nepali Congress Party was also accused of trying to go for independent practice while going to the country in a process. However, in Article 5 of Article 76 of the Constitution, we had provided a fourth type of government than the three types of government in the 47-year-old constitution. In which only the parliamentarians can save the parliament. Therefore, we are concerned about accusing and slandering someone for implementing 76, 5. ‘

Mentioning that the President’s decision cannot be overturned by the court, Baluwatar and Sheetal Niwas are constantly making public, he asked, “Is the system we envision such a law?” Where the Constitution is given to the Supreme Court to interpret. Together we have created a president whose decision cannot be tested in court. His decision cannot be reversed. While in the past, during the active monarchy, the Supreme Court overturned the King’s decision by overturning the Royal Commission, we have practiced in the past that the President’s decision cannot be tested or overturned.

He expressed confidence that the court would come to a verdict after analyzing the situation of the country from the constitution, law and humanitarian angle of the country using warning language.