The oath of KP Sharma Oli, who became the Prime Minister for the third time on Friday, has become controversial. He has not only disregarded the words read by the President during his swearing-in, but has also tried to instruct him by saying “he doesn’t have to”. However, the Prime Minister does not have the right to take or leave in the terminology mentioned in the format prepared for the oath. It is being analyzed that this oath has tarnished the dignity and reputation of the highest institution of the country.
KP Sharma Oli, who became the Prime Minister for the third time on Friday, has been sworn in. When he took the oath, he not only ignored the words read by the President, but also tried to instruct her. However, the Prime Minister does not have the right to decide which one to take or which one to choose in the wording of the oath. From this oath, it is said that the dignity of the supreme body of the country has been tarnished.
During the swearing on the House of Representative on Friday afternoon.
President was seen being rejected by the Prime Minister. Rather than repeating the word “promise” in the form of a sworn-in oath, the president refused to utter the word “it doesn’t matter.” The word “God” or “country and people” in the format is free to choose, but there is no alternative wording to the word that Prime Minister Oli did not utter, making his oath controversial. This public dialogue between the guardians and guardians of the constitution has shown that the supreme body of the nation is weak and underestimated. The Prime Minister should not be allowed to use the framework made in accordance with the constitution in his own manner. What effect does this incident have on the concept of constitution? Is it in the interest of democracy to take a full oath by acknowledging the error? The oath has been retaken before as well. Therefore, it is appropriate to do what the majority of the people say and according to the law of the constitution.