16 February 2024 09:24 am Views - 86
By Lakmal Sooriyagoda
Parliamentarian M.A. Sumanthiran has filed a fundamental rights application before the Supreme Court, challenging the Speaker’s act of certifying the Online Safety Bill as enacted into law.
In his petition, Sumanthiran is seeking a declaration that the Speaker’s certification of the Online Safety Act is not valid in law. The petitioner is further seeking a declaration that the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 12(1) and 14 of the constitution to the petitioner and the citizens have been infringed by the Attorney General by failing to advise the Speaker and the Parliament that the committee stage amendments did not make the Online Safety Bill compliant with the Supreme Court’s determination. The petitioner has cited Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardana and the Attorney General as respondents.
The petitioner stated that when the Special Determination petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Online Safety Bill was taken for argument before Supreme Court on 18th of October 2023, the Additional Solicitor General appearing for the state proposed several changes to the bill which were to be moved at the committee stage of the Parliament.
The petitioner stated that as per the determination of the Supreme Court, several classes of the bill were inconsistent with the constitution and would require a two-thirds vote of the whole number of members of parliament in favour in order to be passed into law.
The petitioner stated that there were 13 inconsistencies between the determination and the proposed committee stage amendments that he had identified. He stated that he warned that if there was a failure to add these amendments, the bill would not become law in terms of the constitution.
The petitioner stated that in terms of parliamentary practice and in order to ensure compliance with the constitution, whenever two-thirds of the whole number of members of parliament is required, a vote must be taken to ascertain the number of members voting in favour.
The petitioner maintained that the bill did not receive the support of two-thirds majority of the total number of members of parliament either at the second reading, or at the third reading.
The petitioner further stated that the Online Safety Bill was never passed into law in terms of the constitution and especially article 123 read with articles 79 and 80.
This petition had been filed through Attorney-at-Law Raj Mohan Balendra.