The House speaker on Supreme Court verdict, how the parliamentary process will move ahead, his relations with Prime Minister Oli and his petition in the court.

House dissolution move turned out to be a trap for Oli, as he is set to lose prime minister’s post and even likely to be reduced to playing second fiddle either to Deuba or Dahal.

The Nepali Congress, with 63 seats in the House, will be the kingmaker. But if it chooses to stay out of the fray, Parliament may struggle to give a new government.

The Nepal Communist Party feud is having an impact on provinces, which will be detrimental to democratic principles and the constitution, experts say.

More than 100 lawyers, including amicus curiae members, spoke on the legality of Oli’s move. Arguments on both sides were weak and repetitive and waste of time, analysts say.

The new academic year will now begin only in mid-June, instead of April, and will be only 10 months long.

Purna Man Shakya, the fourth of the five friends of the court, says the constitution provides limited power to the prime minister with no enabling provision to dissolve the House.

Oli’s moves, especially the ordinance on Constitutional Council Act and the House dissolution, set off events which have created hostility among key state organs.

Satish Krishna Kharel argues that Oli’s move was unconstitutional while Bijay Kant Mainali claims a majoritarian prime minister has every authority to go for House dissolution.

The first of the five friends of the court in his arguments wavers talking about ambiguities in the constitution rather than the legality of KP Sharma Oli’s move.

Amid concerns over spring elections, Dahal-Nepal faction says preparations lack meaning without resolving party row.

Local and provincial governments can now do their bit to provide relief for victims of the conflict, experts say.

Officials are calculating potential political benefits while taking decisions on holidays, critics say.

The bench is yet to hear from lawyers representing Speaker Sapkota, counter-argument from plaintiff and statements from the amicus curiae—a process that could go on till February 17, a court official says.

The decision is against the spirit of federalism envisioned in the constitution, provincial officials say.