Kathmandu: To every predicament, there is and should be a suitable solution.

Constitutional experts say that there is a constitutional course through the effective use of which the current constitutional jumble could be amicably and legally sorted out in the larger interest of the people and the nation.

However, what is needed is that the all-powerful authority that could do so should exhibit its desire and sincerity towards bringing out the country from the existing mess.

If His Majesty the King is allowed to unknot the constitutional mess through the use of the controversial article 127 of the constitution, so does the Supreme Court enjoy unparallel power and rights to undo the crisis brought about by the article 127, if any, as claimed by a larger section of the society including some political forces.

The Article 88 of the 1990 constitution empowers or better say fully authorizes the Supreme Court to intrude in such moments of chaos and crisis when the country is trapped in such a crisis and that the apex court possesses the right to intervene into the matter and is empowered to issue directives to end the debate.

Unquestionably, currently the country is bogged down in a constitutional dispute whose end is not in sight.

The fact is that the Head of the State presumes that whatever he has done through the use of the article 127 was what he should have done or had been told to do so.

The other camp that considers that the King by using the article 127 has crossed his predetermined constitutional limits and hence has dubbed his constitutional acts as regression.

Both the camps have their followers and supporters, which is only but natural in a democratic society.

The politically luxurious tussle thus continues.

In such a situation, the Supreme Court’s role becomes momentous.

Analysts question that if the court is empowered to intervene into the debate then why it is not doing so? An authority that has the power and whose elucidation would never be challenged any where should have understood the gravity of the situation and done the needful to bring the country back to the track.

The court appears least interested in sorting out the crisis for reasons unknown to the analysts.

Yet another section of the political analysts opine that since the Supreme Court has itself approved the dissolution of the parliament some two years ago, it can’t reinterpret its previous decision and revive the dissolved parliament. This section maintains that if the court reversed its own previous decision would send wrong signals within and without.

However, the fact is that article 88 abundantly makes it clear that it should be the apex court that should jump into the scene to unfasten the constitutional knot that came into existence when the King wished to unknot the constitutional crisis created by the sacking of Prime Minister Deuba in October 2002.

A close look at the wordings of the article 88 does point out that this constitutional provision if effectively brought into practice by the summit court could become the antidote for the article 127.

It is up to the court to make a decision on how to proceed and reinterpret its own previous decision, which has already taken a form of legal precedence, speaking on legal terms

But then the fact is that article 88 allows the court to reinterpret its own verdict. How the court reinterprets its own judgment on the dissolution of the parliament should be left to the honorable justices at the court. Whether they endorse the dissolution of the parliament once again or prefer to revitalize the lower house of the representatives have got to be welcomed.

If it is so, analysts would very much wish to see that the apex court through the use of the article 88 works in this regard in order to end the constitutional crisis for good.

Moreover, the constitutional ruler too is empowered to seek suggestions from the apex court. Analysts say that since the King too understands the gravity of the state of affairs obtaining in the country with the Maoists intensifying their violent activities and the parties creating problems for the government from the streets and that, in addition, the constitutional crisis continues, it was time that the King acted fast and sought the suggestions from the Supreme Court and brought an end to the current constitutional stalemate.

After all, the monarch, as per the constitution, is the preserver and protector of the constitution now in force.

Former Chief Justice, Bishwa Nath Upadhyaya, too maintains that the SC can and should unknot the constitutional mess and that the court can do so through the use of the constitutional provisions as enshrined in the constitution itself.