By Yohan Perera and Ajith Siriwardana  

The Supreme Court has held that certain sections of the COVID Disease Temporary Provisions Bill are inconsistent with the Constitution, Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardene announced yesterday.  

The Speaker announced that two Judges of the bench had held that clauses 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 10 together with the definition of COVID- 19 circumstance in the clause 12 of the Bill are inconsistent with Article 3 and 4(c) of the Constitution and could be passed with a special majority provided for in Article 84(2)of the Constitution.  
The two Judges have held that clause 4 of the Bill is inconsistent with Article 136 read together with Article 4( c ) of the Constitution, clauses 5, 6, 7 of the Bill are inconsistent with Article 12(1) of the Constitution while the other provisions of the Bill are not in conflict with the Constitution and may be passed with a simple majority in Parliament. However, with regard to Clause 3(1) of the Bill, a provision may be made as opined by the Court. All inconsistencies could be corrected and the Bill can be passed by a simple majority if amendments proposed by the Supreme Court.   

As per the opinion of the third Judge in the bench, clauses 2,3,4,6,7,8,9 and 10 of the Bill read together with the definition of “Covid-19 circumstance” in Clause 12 of the Bill are consistent with Articles 3 and 4 ( c ) of the Constitution and could be validly passed with a simple majority in Parliament. The definition of “Covid-19 circumstance” could however be amended owing to the fact that sub-clause (b) is an example of sub-clause (c ). In addition clauses 4 of the Bill is inconsistent with Article 136 read together with Article 4 ( c) of the Constitution and could be validly passed only with the special majority provided for in Article 84(2) of the Constitution and the inconsistency would cease if the clause is amended as per the proposed amendment tendered to  Court and may be passed with a simple majority in Parliament. The third Judge has also said clauses 5, 6,7and 8 of the Bill are consistent with Article 12(1) of the Constitution and could be validly passed with a simple majority in Parliament. Other provisions of the Bill are not in conflict with the Constitution and may be passed with a simple majority in Parliament.  

• Other provisions of the Bill are not in conflict with the Constitution and may be passed with a simple majority in Parliament