Nepal’s political scene is tilting toward a courtroom showdown. In a bold move, ten separate petitions have been filed at the Supreme Court challenging Sushila Karki’s appointment as interim prime minister and the dissolution of the House of Representatives.

These legal challenges don’t just test a leader’s legitimacy, they force the system to confront what democracy means in a moment of disruption.

What the Petitions Argue

• Petitioners contend that Karki’s installation violated the constitution, especially given that she is a former chief justice. The constitution bars former Supreme Court justices from holding other offices.
• They also challenge the dissolution of the lower house, claiming it breached the constitution and ignored earlier precedents where dissolved parliaments were later reinstated.
• The petitions cite multiple articles of the constitution to press for revival of Parliament and nullification of Karki’s premiership, essentially asking the court to roll back state actions.
• Already, 14 writs were submitted; 10 relate directly to these political moves and are being processed together.

Context & Backdrop

• Karki was appointed interim prime minister in September, following the Gen Z–led protests that unseated the Oli government and demanded fresh elections.
• One of the protesters’ core demands was House dissolution, and President Paudel acted on that, following Karki’s recommendation, giving her six months to conduct polls.
• Major political parties have vocally opposed the dissolution, seeing it as overreach and breach of parliamentary norms.

What Experts Are Saying

• Constitutional scholars warn that decisions now must balance legal letter and political context.
• The court faces a dilemma: while it must uphold the constitution, its ruling will also need to reflect the change that the protests claimed to bring.
• Many observers see no real alternative to elections; reinstating Parliament won’t settle legitimacy unless a fresh mandate is delivered.

E-Buzz Takeaway

These petitions aren’t just legal papers; they’re markers of how deeply shaken trust has become in the rules that bind power.

When constitution and politics meet this forcefully, the court becomes more than a neutral referee, it becomes a stage.

Nepal’s upcoming ruling won’t just define Karki’s premiership or the restored House, it will define whether law, protest, or power holds sway.