By Yohan Perera and Ajith Siriwardana   

The Supreme Court had determined that certain clauses of the proposed Anti-Corruption Bill was inconsistent with the constitution and has to be passed with a special majority in Parliament while the situation can be avoided if the Bill is amended as advised by the judiciary.  

 Accordingly the Supreme Court had questioned the independence of the commission and had stated that clause 4(3) is inconsistent with article 12 (1) of the constitution and had recommended that clause of the Bill should be amended that members of the Bribery Commission should be appointed with the recommendation of constitutional council.   
Referring to clause 1(2) of the Bill, the Supreme Court had questioned the power of the subject Minister to bring into operation the sections and parts of the Bill that are inconsistent with article 12 (1) of the constitution.   

The Supreme Court had recommended an amendment to the article 4(1) of the constitution under which it had said a vacancy of the Bribery Commission should be filled within three months of its occurrence.   

The judiciary had also stated that clause 8 (3) of the Bill is inconsistent with the constitution. This deals with the code of conduct of the members of the Bribery Commission. Accordingly the Supreme Court had recommended the new clause under which the code of conduct of the Bribery Commission has to be prepared with the consultation of its members.   

The Supreme Court’s determination said clause 31(2) of the Anti-Corruption Bill is also inconsistent with the constitution and had said expenses incurred on inquiries should be safeguarded and Parliament should not block funds for such expenditure.   

Coming up with another important factor with regard to the anti-corruption Bill , the Supreme Court said clause 48 of the Bill which says a person arrested for corruption has to be produced before courts within 14 days was irrational and such a person should be produced before courts forthwith.