News
Historic ‘stay’ order on dissolution of Parliament
For the first time a court order was issued to suspend a Dissolution of Parliament, when the Supreme Court on Tuesday issued its order ‘Staying’ the Gazette notification issued by President Maithripala Sirisena to Dissolve Parliament and hold fresh elections on January 5, 2019.
Political parties, organisations representing civil society and individuals filed 17 Applications, 10 of which were considered before the ‘Stay Order’ was issued until December 7, with objections to be filed before November 19, counter objections on November 26 and written submissions by November 30. Further hearing of the petitions have been fixed for December 4,5 and 6.
The Bench comprised Chief Justice (CJ) Nalin Perera and Justices Priyantha Jayawardena and Prasanna Jayawardena .
Petitioners were TNA Leader R. Sampanthan, UNP General Secretary Kabir Hashim, JVP Leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake, SLMC Leader Rauf Hakeem, Democratic People’s Front leader Mano Ganesan, ACMC Leader Rishard Bathiudeen, Member of the Elections Commission Rathnajeewan Hoole, Attorney-at-Law Lal Wijenayake, Attorney-at-Law G.C.T. Perera, Mr Indika Gallage, Mr U.D. Aruna Laksiri, Executive Director of the Centre for Policy Alternatives Dr Paikiasothy Sarawanamuttu and civil rights activist Chamara Sugathadasa.
The Attorney General, and the Chairman and members of the Elections Commission were cited as Respondents.
Intervening Petitioners were Dr Channa Jayasumana of the Rajarata University, Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna Leader Prof. G.L. Peiris, Pivithuru Hela Urumaya Leader Udaya Gammanpila, Attorney-at-Law Premanath C. Dolawatta, MP Vasudewa Nanayakkara and Attorney-at-Law Gomin Dayasri.
Making his submissions, Kanag-Ishwararan P.C. counsel for Mr. Sampanthan told Court that under the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, the President’s powers to Dissolve Parliament fell under Article 70 (1). He argued that, if Parliament is to be Dissolved before four-and-a-half years of its term is completed, it can only be done through a Resolution passed by a 2/3 majority. He insisted that Article 33, which gives the President powers to Summon, Prorogue and Dissolve Parliament, cannot be read in isolation from Article 70. He referred to the Dissolution of Parliament as an arbitrary and dictatorial act by the President and that it infringed the fundamental rights of the public. He, therefore, asked Court to issue an interim order ‘Staying’ the extraordinary gazette issued Dissolving Parliament.
Lawyers appearing for the other Petitioners made their submissions in support of the arguments made by Mr Kanag-Ishwararan. They all requested that Court ‘Stays’ the gazette Dissolving Parliament, as the Dissolution was unconstitutional.
AG Jayantha Jayasuriya argued that the President’s gazzette was in accordance with the Constitution.
He insisted that Parliament had been dissolved constitutionally, and asked that Court rejects all petitions.