Yesterday I overlooked that there is no mention of any article of the Constitution in his proclamation by which the HoR that was dissolved by him on the recommendation of the then prime minister Sher Bhadur Deuba.
Then, shall I and other people take the revival of the parliament as a unconstitutional step?
Why didn't he mention any article for this purpose? Does he want to show that he is above the constitution?
Whatever be the reason behind, the HoR was dissolved on the basis of the 1990 Constitution. However, for the reinstatement purpose, the Constitution factor apparently has been neglected.
Though the decision is of political nature, can we close the eyes to the Constitution?
Whoever say whatever regarding the Constitution of Nepal (1990), it is no more functioning. Now, it is almost dead. Though the King could not face the pressure of the people's movement as well as that from the international community, and gave up his power for a while, he can take it back again. The parties and the people should be aware that there can be another putsch very soon.
Nevertheless, I feel we should welcome the reinstatement of the HoR rather than the King's proclamation.