Senior Advocate Geeta Pathak Sangroula, who appeared before the constitutional bench of the Supreme Court as an amicus curia on February 19, argued that the Prime Minister did not have prerogative to dissolve the House of Representatives (HoR), reports The Himalayan Times. She said the Prime Minister did not fulfil the preconditions stated in Article 76 (7) before dissolving the HoR. Article 76 (7) stipulates: In cases where the Prime Minister appointed under clause (5) fails to obtain a vote of confidence or the prime minister cannot be appointed, the president shall on recommendation of the Prime Minister, dissolve the HoR and fix a date of election so that the election to another HoR is completed within six months. Senior Advocate Sangroula argued that the Prime Minister's lawyers' argument that the Prime Minister used residuary power to dissolved the HoR was wrong because the residuary power was about the division of powers between the three tiers of the Government.