SC determines it has no jurisdiction to hear Young Journalist Association’s petition
1 February 2022 03:35 pm
Views - 1244
The Supreme Court has determined that it does not have jurisdiction to hear the Special Determination petition filed by the Sri Lanka Young Journalist’s Association challenging the constitutionality of the Personal Data Protection bill, since it has been filed out of time.
Supreme Court three-judge-bench comprising Justice L.T.B. Dehideniya, Justice Shiran Goonaratne and Justice Arjuna Obeysekera announced that Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the petition since it has not been filed within the stipulated period in the constitution.
The Supreme Court's determination is to be communicated to the Speaker of Parliament.
Additional Solicitor General Nerin Pulle appearing for the Attorney General had raised objections regarding the maintainability of the petition since it has filed out of time.
According to the 20th amendment to the constitution, a Bill can be challenged before Supreme Court within 7 days from a Bill being placed on the order paper of Parliament.
The petitioners Tharindu Iranga Jayawardhana, Committee Member of Sri Lanka Young Journalist’s Association and its Treasurer M.F.M. Fazeer filed this petition naming the Attorney General as respondent.
The petitioners are seeking a declaration that the bill requires the approval of the people at a Referendum in addition to the 2/3 approval of the Parliament.
The bill titled “Personal Data Protection” was placed on the Order Paper of Parliament on the 20th of January 2022.
In their petition, the petitioners stated that the proposed Bill has not provided provisions to protect the rights of the journalist to investigate the facts which have public importance.
The petitioners maintained that the proposed Bill has not provided provisions for fair comments by the journalist.
They said the bill is contrary to the fundamental rights protected by the constitution especially the freedom of expression.
The petitioners are also seeking a determination declaring that clauses 3 and 4 of the proposed bill are inconsistent with Articles 3 and 4 of the constitution.
Attorney-at-law Nuwan Bopage with Ramzi Bacha appeared for the petitioners. Additional Solicitor General Nerin Pulle appeared for the Attorney General.
When the Daily Mirror spoke to the Chair of the Data Protection Drafting Committee, they said they are willing to hear out the petitioner's concerns. (Lakmal Sooriyagoda)