The Supreme Court has ordered Pushpa Kamal Dahal, former prime minister and chair of one of the factions of the Nepal Communist Party, to furnish a written reply in relation to a contempt of court case filed against him.

A single bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Sharma issued the order to that effect on Wednesday, according to the Supreme Court.

Advocate Sameer Hayu had filed a contempt of court case against Dahal on Monday.

In the petition, the advocate has argued that Dahal has been making statements on the government decision to dissolve the House of Representatives, which is sub-judice at the court.

Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli dissolved the House on December 20, arguing that his opponents in the party, including Dahal, had created obstacles in governance.

As many as 13 writ petitions have been filed challenging Oli’s House dissolution move. The Constitutional Bench, led by Chief Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana, is hearing the case for the past few weeks.

Oli’s House dissolution move resulted in the split in the Nepal Communist Party.

Dahal currently leads the other faction of the party along with Madhav Kumar Nepal.

Dahal is the seventh person summoned by the court with a written reply on a contempt of court charge after Prime Minister Oli, four former chief justices–Min Bahadur Rayamajhi, Anup Raj Sharma, Kalyan Shrestha and Sushila Karki–and former Speaker Daman Nath Dhungana.

Justice Sharma on Thursday had asked Oli, four former chief justices and Dhungana to furnish their written replies within seven days.

Oli faces a contempt of cases for making disparaging remarks against 94-year-old senior advocate Krishna Prasad Bhandari, former chair of Nepal Bar Association, and describing the ongoing court hearing on the House dissolution case as a farce.

The four former chief justices were accused of contempt of court for issuing a statement, calling the House dissolution move unconstitutional.

Dhungana faces contempt of court for making a public statement that the justices of the Supreme Court could be targeted if they did not consider the people’s sentiment while delivering justice.

Oli’s House dissolution has attracted widespread criticism, as experts on constitutional matters have called it an unconstitutional move, saying the country’s constitution does not allow him, as a majority prime minister to dissolve the Parliament.