• Clause 3(2) of the Bill is inconsistent with Article 12(1) of the Constitution

By Yohan Perera and Ajith Siriwardana 

The Supreme Court informed the speaker that Petroleum Products Special Provisions Amendment Bill is inconsistent as a whole with article 12(1) of the constitution, Speaker announced yesterday. 

 Supreme Court had said this inconsistency will cease if the committee appointed by the Cabinet of Ministers shall be deemed to be a Scheduled institution within the meaning of the Bribery Act, and the provisions of that Act shall be construed accordingly.” 

Clause 3(2) of the Bill is inconsistent with Article 12(1) of the Constitution as per the determination and may only be passed by the special majority required under the provisions of paragraph (2) of Article 84. The inconsistency will cease if the composition of the Bill is changed to include that the Secretary to the ministry in charge of the subject of Economic policy development and the Secretary to the Ministry in charge of the subject of investment promotion in the energy supply Committee, which is to be appointed under the Bill. 

Upon an examination of Clause 7, the courts are of the view that it is a deeming provision as Power exercised or any act done by the Energy Supply Committee through legislative intervention thereby excluding the judicial power of the People. Hence, Clause 7 is consistent with Articles 3 and a(c) of the Constitution and may be passed only by a special majority required under the provisions of paragraph (2) of Article 84 and approved by the People at a Referendum by virtue of the provisions of Article 83.