Another election postponement bid nipped in the bud

By Lakmal Sooriyagoda

The Fundamental Rights petition, filed by a lawyer seeking a declaration that the Presidential Election should not be held without a referendum on the 19th amendment to the Constitution, was dismissed by the Supreme Court, ordering the petitioner to pay a cost of Rs. 500,000.

The Supreme Court three-judge-bench comprising Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, Justice Arjuna Obeysekera and Justice Priyantha Fernando decided to dismiss the petition citing that there is no legal basis to proceed with the application. 

The petitioner was ordered to pay the cost on or before July 31 this year.

Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya observed that the petitioner has deliberately abused the court process and misled the court by filing this kind of frivolous application. “The petitioner, being an Attorney-at-Law, has a duty towards the court for the proper administration of justice and shall not mislead or deceive the court. He should be aware of his professional obligations and shall refrain from filing frivolous applications of this nature,” the Chief Justice observed.

In his petition, Attorney-at-Law Aruna Laksiri challenged the holding of a Presidential Election this year under the provisions of the 19th amendment to the Constitution, as he believes that the 19th amendment was not properly passed with a referendum. The petitioner sought an order directing the Secretary General of Parliament to hold a referendum that would enable the people to approve the bill of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution.

The Attorney General raised preliminary objections challenging the maintainability of the Fundamental Rights petition on three grounds. Deputy Solicitor General Kanishka de Silva informed the Supreme Court that the bill relating to the 19th Amendment to the Constitution was endorsed by the Speaker on May 15, 2015, and hence there is no legal basis to proceed with this petition. She submitted to the Court that, in terms of Article 80(3) of the Constitution, the court has no jurisdiction to inquire into the validity of an act where a bill becomes law upon the certificate of the Speaker.  The second objection was that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate the infringement of his fundamental rights arising from administrative or executive actions. The third objection was that the petitioner has not filed this application within the one-month period in terms of Article 126(2) of the Constitution.  President’s Counsel Farman Cassim, appearing for SJB General Secretary Ranjith Madduma Bandara, informed the court that the submission of a bill to the people by referendum cannot be done by the Secretary General of Parliament but by the President of the Republic in terms of Article 85 of the Constitution.  Counsel Nishan Sydney Premathiratne with Shenali Dias and Nimashi Fernando instructed by Gamindu Karunasena appeared for the Intervenient Petitioner Parliamentarian Harshana Rajakaruna. Upul Kumarapperuma PC, Senior Counsel Vijith Singh appeared for several other intervenient petitioners.