Introduction:
The dissolution of the parliament is being discussed all over the world at this time and it is being discussed all over the Nepali villages and settlements. In the parliamentary history of Nepal, almost half a dozen times and even after the promulgation of the new constitution, it has been dissolved twice in a span of six months. This article attempts to discuss the law of dissolution of parliament.
Sovereignty of Parliament:
Before discussing the dissolution of Parliament, let us discuss the sovereignty of Parliament. In the case of the United Kingdom, which is considered to be the mother of parliamentary tradition, it was initially said that the sovereignty belongs to the king and the king has the law and the law to curtail the power of the king or to dissolve the parliament. Especially when the principle of no taxation without representation was adopted by the parliament, then the king started dissolving it by asking why such a parliament should be formed. This tradition continued till later. As the dispute between the king and the parliament escalated, the kings eventually accepted the notion of a subordinate king, which led to the development of the king’s honorary and omnipotent parliament. Later it was called parliamentary system. Speaking of the sovereignty of Parliament, it was also said that the British Parliament has the right to do everything except make women men and men women. The belief that no one but the parliament can curtail the power of the parliament has developed and the belief that all the organs and officials of the state are subordinate to the parliament has also developed. Because the parliament is sovereign, it is said that it has unlimited rights. Compared to the parliament, the king cannot make laws. Parliament makes laws. The court cannot overturn the law of the parliament but the parliament itself can amend or repeal its own law. The notion that the parliament is not subject to anyone and that the parliament should not be a prisoner of its own preconceived notions and decisions and that it cannot guide the future parliament as well has developed. Along with the separation of powers, the recognition of control and balance also developed along with the prosperity of parliamentary recognition. Despite this, the belief that the sovereignty of the parliament will not be frustrated by being the representative of the people will not die for no reason.
Jurisprudence of the dissolution of Parliament:
Parliament is the representative body of the people. In a parliamentary system, parliament is also the mother of government. When the government cannot be born, then the legitimacy of the parliament automatically ends and the dissolution of the parliament is justified. In the traditional parliamentary system, the leader who is trusted in the parliament is the prime minister, so when the parliament obstructs the work, the prime minister has the freedom to choose between resignation or dissolution of the parliament. The United Kingdom, the mother of the parliamentary system, changed that view a decade ago, saying it could not end parliament’s sovereignty by itself, so dissolution was possible only if it was accepted by a two-thirds majority. Since then, the sovereignty of parliament has been strengthened. Another is Japan, where the leader of parliament, if the parliament does not support the plan desired by the prime minister, then either support my plan or else dissolve the parliament. The constitution of Japan gave the exemption and the prevailing belief called legislative bargaining developed. According to jurisprudential beliefs, the first condition is that the parliament is the representative body of the people, so it is universal. The second condition is the dissolution of Parliament or the resignation of the Prime Minister. However, it is important to confirm that the dissolution was inevitable. Thirdly, as the parliament is a law-making body, the dissolution of the parliament is possible only in accordance with the law. The fourth condition is that it cannot be dissolved out of skepticism or by looking for loopholes in the constitution. Parliament is the only alternative to Parliament, so the availability of another Parliament must be ensured. Dissolution of another parliament is not acceptable without certainty. The fifth condition is to go before the parliament in case of any calamity. If you want to seek help from the parliament, you have to go to the parliament. These and similar beliefs are the facts told by the court about the dissolution of the parliament of the country concerned which has been taken as the law of dissolution of the parliament.
Recently developed jurisprudence:
The parliamentary system, which was based on the premise that if the majority prime minister could not work freely, the dissolved parliament could be dissolved, entered into a situation where only the prime minister who could not get a majority in parliament could recommend dissolution. The job of parliament is to create a government. It was concluded that the dissolution of the parliament was not possible as long as the government could be formed, and even if the government was to be formed by a majority, two-thirds would be required to dissolve it. Recognition as a developed parliamentary system started by the UK a decade ago has now spread to many countries in the world through Sri Lanka and the courts of the countries concerned have declared the dissolution of Parliament invalid on the same basis. A recent example is the Constitution of Nepal, which provides for the dissolution of a parliament if it fails to form a government immediately after the election or fails to get a vote of confidence from the parliament and cannot form another government.
The explanation of the case was further confirmed. Despite this, it is still under consideration and further explanation is expected. Announcing the election is a prerequisite for the dissolution of parliament. This is the only reason why undemocratic actions cannot be forgiven. We should not be reminded of the fact that Gyanendra’s election was rejected. Announcing the election cannot be a weapon to justify the dissolution of the parliament.
Reference to Nepal:
Nepal’s constitution does not provide for the dissolution of parliament. In this context, Article 76 (7) provides for the dissolution of Parliament and the announcement of the date of the next election if a vote of confidence is not obtained or the Prime Minister is not appointed, but that provision is not for dissolving Parliament but for forming a government. A government must be formed within 30 days of the election. If a majority government cannot be formed within that period, a minority government cannot be formed. Only the parliament will be dissolved. The fact that the parliament cannot be dissolved suddenly or in a whim or any other trend is confirmed by the report and discussions and recommendations prepared during the drafting of the constitution. The facts have proved that autocracy prevailed due to the dissolution of the parliament. The decision of the Constitutional Court that the recent ordinance issued for the purpose of deceiving the parliament is not valid in the context of the Citizenship Ordinance is relevant. If the President feels that something needs to be done when the Parliament convenes, he will be able to issue an ordinance in a simple sentence. Seems to be. It may not be natural to assess the issues under consideration by the court, however, it cannot be said that the beliefs and principles adopted by the court from the point of view of academic debate will not be effective in the issues under consideration.
Conclusion:
Finally, the question of the restoration of the dissolved parliament is linked to the defense of the sovereignty of the parliament and the defense of sovereignty, the defense of the constitution and the defense of democracy. Needless to say, this constitution was not written with little grief. Therefore, the defense of this constitution is the responsibility of the general democracy and the proponents of the constitution. The actions of every organ and body constituted in accordance with the constitution must be in accordance with the constitution and in the interest of the country and the people.