Clauses which are inconsistent with the Constitution

• 3(4), 6(1) (u), which dealt with the establishment and powers of the Economic Commission
•  68(1)(F) and 68(3) dealing with the miscellaneous provisions
• 52(3) read with clauses 52(5) which deals with incentives and exemptions of laws
• 71(2) (P)with regard to preparations of regulations by the Economic Commission
• 71(1) and 74 with regard to the interpretation of the regulatory authority

By Yohan Perera and Ajith Siriwardana   

The Supreme Court has determined that certain sections of the Port City Economic Commission Bill are inconsistent with some sections of the Constitution and have to be passed with a special majority while a few sections will have to be approved by a special majority plus a referendum , Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardene informed Parliament yesterday.  

Accordingly the Speaker said the Supreme Court has held that provisions of clauses 3(4), 6(1) (u), which dealt with the establishment and powers of the Economic Commission 68(1)(F) and 68(3)  dealing with the miscellaneous provisions were inconsistent with Article 76 read with Articles 3 and 4 of the Constitution and could be approved by a special majority of the Constitution and by a referendum by virtue of the provisions of Article 83.   

“The provisions of clause 52(3) read with clauses 52(5) which deals with incentives and exemptions of laws and 71(2) (P)with regard to preparations of regulations by the Economic Commission, are inconsistent with Article 148 of the Constitution read with Articles 3 , 4 and 76 of the Constitution and could be passed by a special majority and at a referendum,” it is said.  

Also the Speaker said clauses 3(6) , 30(3) second proviso 55(2) and 58(1)are inconsistent with article 12(1) of the constitution, clauses 3(5)proviso 3(7), 6(1)(b), 30(3) first proviso 71(1) and 74 with regard to the interpretation of the regulatory authority is inconsistent with article 84(2) of the Constitution, clauses 30(1),33(1) with deals single window status of the Economic Commission, 40(2) of the Constitution , 71(2) (1) are inconsistent with Article 14(h) of the Constitution, provisions 53(2)(b)read with clause 53(3) of the Bill is inconsistent with Article 76 of the Constitution which is read with Articles 3 and 4 with the Constitution, clauses 60(c) and clauses 60(F) are inconsistent with 148 of the constitution while clauses 37 of the Bill is inconsistent with article 12(1) article 12(1) and 14 (1) (g )of the Constitution.   

However the Speaker also announced that inconsistencies will cease if the clauses were amended in line with the determination of the Supreme Court and if new sub clauses were added. 

• The provisions of clause 52(3) read with clauses 52(5) which deals with  incentives and exemptions of laws and 71(2) (P)with regard to  preparations of regulations by the Economic Commission, are  inconsistent with Article 148 of the Constitution read with Articles 3 ,  4 and 76 of the Constitution and could be passed by a special majority  and at a referendum,