Columns

• Rebuffs claim that ruling upends Speaker Bandaranaike’s assertion of parliamentary supremacy, says issues then and now differ
• SJB initiates no-confidence motion against Premier Amarasuriya over reference to adult website in Grade 6 English module
• UNP-SJB unity efforts make progress; UNP Working Committee adopts roadmap for unification; SJB Working Committee schedules meeting for next week
• Indian envoy hails 2025 as year of Indo-Lanka partnership; China’s Foreign Minister to visit Lanka on Monday

By Our Political Desk

The fallout from the government’s scandal-plagued education reforms shows no sign of abating, especially as new controversies arise almost daily with allegations of yet more errors or questionable content being found in the modules designed for students of Grades 1 and 6, for whom the reforms will be first introduced this year. Much of the blame from opposition parties, trade unions and others who oppose the reforms are being directed at Prime Minister Harini Amarasuriya, who in her capacity as Minister of Education, Higher Education and Vocational Education, is seen as the main driver and public face of the reforms.

In an effort to quell the increasing backlash over the publication in the Grade 6 English Language module textbook of a web address which directs students to a gay chat website, the Premier and senior Education Ministry officials personally called on the Chief Prelates and other senior monks of the Malwathu and Asgiri Chapters. They also presented all the modules that had been printed for the monks to examine for themselves. She also acknowledged before the chief prelates that officials found further errors upon a review of the 106 modules that have so far been printed.

Opposition parties led by the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) meanwhile, have begun signing signatures for a No-Confidence Motion (NCM) against the PM, which they hope to hand over to the Speaker in the coming days. An SJB led campaign to collect signatures for a public petition also commenced yesterday beside the statue of C.W.W. Kannangara; the ‘Father of Free Education,’ in Matugama. The public petition calls on the Prime Minister to step down from her post of Education Minister if proper steps are not taken urgently to clear up the mess that has been caused by hastily put together education reforms. SJB General Secretary Ranjith Maddumabandara said the SJB had initially called for a party leaders’ meeting to be called to decide on a debate on the new education reforms, but that they resorted to collecting signatures for an NCM against the PM when this did not happen. “We are signing it (NCM) at the moment and will submit the motion with the signatures when it is ready.”

The SJB collecting signatures for a public petition against Prime Minister and Education Minister Harini Amarasuriya following a reference to an adult website in the Grade Six English text module

While the opposition is engaged in collecting signatures for an NCM against Premier Amarasuriya, Government sources said that they are united in their position that the education reforms should go ahead and that President Anura Kumara Dissanayake and the Cabinet are firmly behind the PM. A senior government source said that there attempts by its opponents to ‘frame’ Ms Amarasuriya and that the inclusion of the controversial web link seems to be a deliberate attempt to defame her and dismissed rumours of her being replaced.

There was speculation that President Dissanayake, when he visited Parliament on Wednesday (7), would address the ongoing attacks targeting the Prime Minister and respond to the news of an NCM being organised against her by the opposition. However, the President was actually present to chair the second meeting of the Ministerial Consultative Committee on Finance, Planning, and Economic Development. Nevertheless, addressing the inaugural programme on Friday (9) to grant compensation upto Rs. 5 million each for the construction of new houses to replace those destroyed by Cyclone Ditwah, President Dissanayake strongly defended the new education reforms, dismissing what he called “baseless allegations” and “insults” being hurled against reforms that he noted had been contemplated for years. “Whatever they try to do to scuttle these reforms, we will ensure that these changes are implemented,” the President insisted.

The proposed NCM against the PM also came up when Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) National Organiser Namal Rajapaksa and Hambantota District MP D.V. Chanaka hosted a group of economic experts at the SLPP head office in Colombo this week. The primary focus of the meeting was however, on corruption concerns surrounding a recent coal import tender. Mr. Chanaka has been vocal about issues concerning the coal tender, claiming that sub-standard coal has been imported into the country as a result. Speaking to those gathered, Mr. Rajapaksa had emphasised the importance of setting up a proper procurement system for such tenders.

When the topic turned to the NCM, Mr. Rajapaksa had stated that the SJB had initially said the NCM will be against the whole government and not the PM. “I told the SJB that we will not support an NCM that is against the whole government, so to bring it only against the Prime Minister, in her capacity as Education Minister since this is about the future of schoolchildren. What we want is to remove harmful content directed at children, not to topple the government. We need to pressure the government to change the syllabus. We can resolve other issues with the government separately,” Mr. Rajapaksa had stressed.

Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne: Judicial independence should not be subjected to parliamentary checks

Governments sources said they welcome the NMC and would allocate even two days for the debate so as to give time to clear misconceptions regarding the education reforms as well as expose attempts to undermine the PM.

SJB-UNP unity efforts

Meanwhile there have also been some major developments in the reunification talks between the SJB and the United National Party (UNP). The UNP’s first Working Committee meeting for the New Year took place at the party headquarters, Sirikotha. UNP Leader and former President Ranil Wickremesinghe arrived at the meeting with a number of files and in a surprising move, announced a comprehensive programme to review the UNP. The primary objective of this initiative is the total restructuring of the party, he told the Working Committee.

In tandem with this programme, the Working Committee focused on discussions regarding a potential collaboration with the SJB. Several UNP leaders briefed the committee on recent talks held with SJB Leader Sajith Premadasa.

The Working Committee expressed its consensus for the UNP and SJB to work together in the future. A joint action plan was also agreed upon, with the Committee moving to pass six key proposals. These were: (1) Appointment of a ‘Joint National Action Committee’ comprising members from both parties to coordinate the work of local government representatives in Municipal Councils, Urban Councils, and Pradeshiya Sabhas; (2) Appointment of a Committee tasked with initiating three joint programmes between the UNP and SJB Working Committees; (3) Appointment of another Committee, with the approval of both party leaders—to explain the new situation to those parties and engage in further discussions; (4) A meeting between the UNP Leader Wickremesinghe and SJB Leader Premadasa, following agreement on the initial programme; (5) Following the meeting between the two party leaders, Working Committees of both parties to meet collectively; (6) Informing all stakeholders—including parties currently in alliance or agreements with the UNP—that they will be working in unison with the SJB.

The SJB’s response to the UNP’s latest moves will be discussed when the party’s own Working Committee meets next Tuesday (13). SJB General Secretary Ranjith Maddumabandara told the Sunday Times that his party too will likely take a decision at this meeting on face-to-face talks between Mr. Premadasa and Mr. Wickremesinghe, which the SJB feels, is the best way to make quick and substantial progress in reunification talks.

Question over Parliament supremacy

Meqnahile, in Parliament this week, Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne this week undid a 25-year-old historic ruling by one of his predecessors which upheld the supremacy of Parliament, ruling out the appointment of a Parliamentary Select Committee to examine the irregularities in the appointment and promotion of judicial officers. His ruling, announced in parliament on Friday, was in response to a motion handed over by a group of opposition MPs on November 21 seeking the appointment of a parliamentary committee (PSC) “to examine the powers exercised by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) in relation to the appointment, promotion, transfer, dismissal and disciplinary control of judicial officers.”

Speaker Wickramaratne’s ruling comes 25 years after then Speaker Anura Bandaranaike delivered a historic ruling, upholding the supremacy of Parliament and rejecting a Supreme Court order which sought to prevent him from appointing a PSC to probe the impeachment motion against then Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva.

In his ruling, Speaker Wickramaratne referred to the ruling by Mr Bandaranaike on June 20, 2001, but said the matter before him was different in nature.

“The 2001 ruling concerned an order issued by the Supreme Court restraining the Speaker from appointing a Select Committee of Parliament regarding a motion for the impeachment of the then Chief Justice.  While the factual circumstances evaluated in the 2001 ruling are not comparable to the facts of the instant occasion, I believe the motion submitted by some of the Honourable Members of Parliament on the 21st of November 2025 presents an equally momentous opportunity to reassert the commitment of this House to the doctrine of separation of powers.”

“While the 2001 ruling concerned the Speaker’s role in facilitating the appointment of a Parliamentary Select Committee and raised the issue of whether the judiciary could control such an exercise, the present motion raises the opposite question: should the Speaker, and by extension Parliament, be permitted to control the judiciary’s powers by creating an oversight mechanism for the Judicial Service Commission (JSC)?”

The motion to appoint the PSC was signed by 31 MPs, including Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa and MPs Ranjith Madduma Bandara, Dayasiri Jayasekara, Gayantha Karunathilleka, Ajith P. Perera, D.V. Chanaka, Dilith Jayaweera, Rishard Bathiudeen, Shanakyan Rasamanikkam and Chamara Sampath Dasanayake.

They sought an inquiry into all appointments, promotions, and transfers of judicial officers made since January 1, 2025, to determine whether these actions were carried out in line with the Constitution, principles of natural justice, and accepted administrative guidelines.

Here are excerpts of Speaker Wickramaratne’s ruling:

The motion submitted by Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa and 30 other MPs calls for the appointment of a PSC to inquire into the powers of appointment, promotion, transfer, dismissal and disciplinary control of judicial officers exercised by the JSC and to compile a report assessing the following issues:

I.     The exercise of powers by the JSC in relation to all appointments, promotions, transfers, dismissals and disciplinary control of judicial officers during the period beginning from the 1st of January 2025 to present;

II.   Whether such appointments, promotions, transfers, dismissals and disciplinary control have been conducted according to the Constitution, principles of natural justice and other such relevant laws or guidelines of the JSC;

III.  Whether reasons have been recorded and intimated to the judicial officers concerned within the means of law and without bias;

IV.  Whether, prior to a decision on the transfer, dismissal, or disciplinary control of judicial officers, discussions with such judicial officers were facilitated;

V.   Whether, in making decisions on appointments, promotions, transfers, dismissals, and disciplinary control of judicial officers, the Judicial Service Commission took into account extraneous considerations.

VI.  If so, the impact of such considerations on judicial independence, the administration of justice, and public confidence in the judiciary.

VII. Recommendations for constitutional and statutory amendments, administrative guidelines, and appeal mechanisms to counter irregular appointments, promotions, transfers, dismissals, and disciplinary control through the JSC.

“A cursory glance over the said objectives of the motion reveals that the proposed PSC is exercising what essentially is an oversight function of the JSC and its operations. By scrutinising the JSC’s decisions on appointments, promotions, transfers, dismissals, and disciplinary control, the proposed Committee would be intruding into the operational sphere of the judiciary, which is the very essence of an oversight function.”

“From both its composition and its conferred functions, it is my opinion that the operations of the JSC are attributable to and an exercise of judicial power of the People as envisioned under Article 4(c) read with Article 3 of the Constitution.’

“The JSC forms an integral part of the judicial branch of government and not an administrative body subordinate to either the Executive or the Legislature. Entrusted with authority over appointments, promotion, transfer, disciplinary control, and dismissal of all judicial officers of the Republic, the JSC functions as an institutional extension of the judiciary itself. The JSC’s powers, exercised through the highest judicial leadership, i.e., through the Chief Justice, affirm that the Commission’s role is properly attributable to the judicial arm of government.”

“By careful consideration of Articles 111D, 111H, 111K, and 111L of the Constitution, it is clear that the establishment and functioning of the JSC constitutes a part of the judicial arm of the government and an exercise of the judicial power of the People.”

“Additionally, under CHAPTER VII-A titled ‘The Constitutional Council’, Article 41C sets out that no person shall be appointed to the JSC by the President without the approval of the Constitutional Council recommendation. The chapter further refers to other commissions whose appointments are made upon the recommendations of the Constitutional Council. Article 41B explicitly refers to a list of such commissions which are answerable to Parliament. However, the JSC has not been mentioned therein. This omission underscores that the JSC, as an extension of the people’s judicial power, stands independent of the executive and the legislature.”

“However, it is my opinion that Parliament’s custody of the public purse, entrusted by the people in trust, confers fiduciary responsibility but not hierarchical supremacy, and cannot justify an automatic encroachment on the constitutional separation of powers and form a derogation of the independence of the judiciary. In fact, the Constitution provides only one permissible avenue for review of JSC decisions – resorting to the Fundamental Rights Jurisdiction under Article 126 of the Constitution read with Article 17 of the Constitution.”

“Moreover, in the House of Commons, it is a well-established constitutional convention that judicial independence prohibits any form of political accountability being imposed on judges. Consistent with the constitutional principles set out in Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice, and grounded in the doctrines of judicial independence and the separation of powers, the legal position is unequivocal: the establishment of such a committee would be unconstitutional and contrary to long-standing parliamentary practice. Erskine May further states that judicial independence is a fundamental constitutional convention, and parliamentary actions must not “impair judicial independence”.

“Placing the judiciary before a Select Committee—a political body—would subject judges or judicial administrators to political scrutiny, thereby undermining the essential independence required of the judicial branch. Erskine May states that the courts and Parliament are “separate and independent” organs of government. Neither House may exercise judicial power, nor may they review, supervise, or control judicial acts. The administration of the judiciary—including appointments, discipline, case assignment, and internal governance—is an inherent part of judicial independence.”

“Therefore, it abundantly shows that the parliamentary scrutiny into administrative decisions of the judiciary would breach the constitutional separation of powers. In my opinion, any motion in the exercise of the legislative power that encroaches on the exercise of the people’s judicial power, threatening the doctrine of separation, is an affront to the Constitution of the Republic. As such, for the following reasons, I find the motion submitted on the 21st of November 2025 to appoint a Select Committee of Parliament to examine the powers of the Judicial Service Commission in relation to the appointment, promotion, transfer, dismissal, and disciplinary control of judicial officers out of order.”

1.  The functions and purpose of the Judicial Service Commission embody the exercise of the people’s judicial power and therefore enjoy the constitutional protection of judicial independence; and

2.  The Constitution does not permit Parliament to encroach upon that power by exercising oversight over the Judicial Service Commission’s operations; this prohibition is reinforced by the doctrine of separation of powers enshrined in Article 3, read with Article 4, of the Constitution; and

3.  The custody of the public purse, entrusted to Parliament by the People in trust, confers fiduciary responsibility but not hierarchical supremacy, and cannot justify encroachment upon the constitutional separation of powers; and

4.  The Constitution does not provide the Parliament the authority to inquire into, supervise, or review the functions or decisions of the Judicial Service Commission.

The appointment of a Select Committee of Parliament to examine matters pertaining to the Judicial Service Commission would be a derogation of the independence of the judiciary and thereby a derogation of the judicial power of the People.”

Following the Speaker’s ruling, several opposition MPs took to their feet to oppose it, calling it a violation of the fundamental rights of the people.  Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa told the Speaker that his ruling amounted to a violation of the Constitution and sovereignty of the people.

Mr Premadasa noted that the Constitution emphasises separation of the three major branches of government (executive, legislature and judiciary), and that each of those three branches is bestowed with powers to promote checks and balances within them. These three branches, however, assume their powers through people’s sovereignty. Accordingly, all three branches derive their authority from the people.

He added that the Constitutional Council was established to ensure additional checks and balances to check the other branches of government. Parliament is also bestowed with the responsibility to ensure that the people’s sovereignty is protected, the Opposition Leader asserted, adding that this was why MPs had submitted a motion to appoint a PSC to examine the conduct of the JSC. “Your decision is a derogation of the people’s sovereignty. It’s a violation of people’s sovereignty, and it’s a violation of the Constitution,” Mr Premadasa insisted, asserting that the ruling is also a violation of the people’s fundamental and human rights.

In the 2001 ruling, the issue before Mr Bandaranaike related to two orders by the Supreme Court seeking to restrain the Speaker from appointing a Select Committee of Parliament under and in terms of Standing Order 78A of the Standing Orders of Parliament while two fundamental rights petitions were pending, in which the petitioners alleged that there is an imminent infringement of certain fundamental rights, to which they claim to be entitled, by reason of the envisaged appointment of a Select Committee. Speaker Bandaranaike, however, dismissed the moves to restrain him from appointing the PSC, ruling that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to issue the interim orders restraining the Speaker of Parliament in respect of the steps he is empowered to take under Standing Order 78A and that there is no legal obligation to comply with the said orders.

Indo-Lanka partnership

In another development, Indian High Commissioner Santosh Jha met with a group of media personnel on Thursday to brief them on the India-Sri Lanka Partnership in the past year.

For Indo-Lanka relations, 2025 was a special year with the visit of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Sri Lanka in April 2025—the first foreign Head of Government to be hosted by President Anura Kumara Dissanayake since taking office in September 2024.

The year also saw a series of high-level exchanges, including a visit by Prime Minister Harini Amarasuriya to India in October 2025 and visits by several ministers for subject-related exchanges, as well as parliamentary delegations, including one led by the Sri Lanka-India Parliamentary Friendship Group.

The year closed with the visit of External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar to Sri Lanka from December 22 to 23. He came as the Special Envoy of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, carrying a message for President Dissanayake—a message of support and solidarity in the wake of the devastation caused by Cyclone Ditwah.

The High Commissioner said that after the initial Indian assistance in the aftermath of Cyclone Ditwah, the assistance package proposed, which includes USD 350 million in concessional lines of credit and USD 100 million of grants, will be multi-pronged, assisting Sri Lanka in sectors that were most badly hit.

The five broad categories of support are rehabilitation and restoration of road, railway and bridge connectivity; support for construction of houses fully destroyed and partially damaged; support for health and education systems, in particular, those that have been damaged by the cyclone; agriculture, including to address possible shortages in the short and medium term; and working towards better disaster response and preparedness.

“In our economic partnership, 2025 was also a year of many milestones. Several flagship projects were inaugurated, including the groundbreaking of the Sampur Solar Power Project and the launch of signalling system installation on the Maho–Anuradhapura railway line. Important projects such as the upgrade of the Maho–Omanthai railway line and the provision of solar rooftop systems to 5,000 religious sites were completed. Substantial progress was also made on the power grid interconnection project, which holds considerable potential for enabling Sri Lankan power exports to India. Alongside this, engagement expanded into new domains of technology, innovation and AI, with Sri Lankan start-ups undertaking capacity building in India and leading Indian venture capital firms pledging support to Sri Lanka’s innovation ecosystem,” the High Commissioner said.

While Sri Lanka-India relations have been solid during 2025, the NPP government’s relations with China too have held strong. While there were several high-level visits from Chinese officials in 2025, this year will kick off with a two-day visit by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi on Monday.

He is expected to discuss Chinese investments in Sri Lanka as well as new areas of economic cooperation.