(LANKAPUVATH | COLOMBO) – The Supreme Court has determined that the “22nd Amendment to the Constitution Bill” complies with the provision of the Constitution except for certain clauses and can be passed by a special majority.
Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena told Parliament that the Supreme Court had determined that certain clauses of the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution Bill are not consistent with the Constitution, and directed that those clauses required to be passed by a special majority and a public referendum.
However, if the articles in the clauses that are not in compliance with the provisions of the Constitution are amended, the Bill can be passed a referendum will not be needed for passage. /p>
The announcement of the Supreme Court decision by the Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena is as follows:
1. Supreme Court states that the bill complies with the provision of Article 82 (1) of the constitution and requires it to be passed by a Special Majority specified in Article 82 (5) of the constitution.
2. Clause 2 of the bill contains provisions inconsistent with Article 3 read together with Article 4 (b) of the constitution, as such may be enacted only by the Special Majority specified in Article 82 (5) of the constitution, and upon being approved by the people at a referendum by virtue of Article 83.
However, the necessity of a referendum shall cease if the proposed Articles 41 (a), 41 (a) (6), and 41 (b) (4) in clause 2 are suitably amended to remove the deeming provisions set out therein.
3. Clause 3 of the bill contains provisions inconsistent with Article 3 read together with Article 4 (b) of the constitution, as such may be enacted only by the Special Majority specified in Article 82 (5) of the constitution, and upon being approved by the people at a referendum by virtue of Article 83.
However, the necessity of a referendum shall cease if the proposed Article 44 (2), 44 (3) , 45 (1), 46 (1), 43 (7) (a), 48 (3), and 50 in Clause 3 are suitably amended by deleting the reference to ‘The President Acting on the advice of the Prime Minister” and replacing instead, the President acting in consultation with the Prime Minister &, If provisions of Articles 47 (2) (a) are restored, and Restored proposed Articles 47 (2) in clause number 3.
Ten parties, including Secretary of Vinivida Foundation Attorney-At-Law Nagananda Kodithuvakku, Dr. Gunadasa Amarasekara, Lawyer Nuvan Ballantudawa, Tissa Bandara Ratnayake, HDJ Kulatunga, and BP Dahanayake had filed petitions challenging the 22nd Constitutional Amendment Bill.
The petitioners claimed that some of the clauses of the “22nd Amendment to the Constitution bill” proposed to be added to the current Constitution by the government are against the provisions of the current constitution and the fundamental human rights guaranteed by the Constitution are being violated by them.
Therefore, the petitions have requested the Supreme Court to give a decision that if it is necessary to pass the clauses included in the relevant bill, it should be passed by a two-thirds majority vote in the Parliament and a referendum.
