SC conveys its determination on PTA amendment bill

By Yohan Perera and Ajith Siriwardana   

The Supreme Court has determined that certain clauses in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Bill are not consistent with the Constitution and need to be amended before being enacted into laws, Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena informed Parliament yesterday.  

He said the Supreme Court has therefore observed that the third clause of the Bill needs to be passed with a two-thirds majority in Parliament.   

The Courts have held that Clause 3 of the legislation is inconsistent and has to be passed by a two thirds majority in Parliament. The Court also held that some sections of this clause were vague.   

The Courts have observed that in these circumstances, the proposed Section 9A(1) is vague for two reasons. The first is with regard to the failure to specify a specific time within which the Magistrate must be served with a copy of the Order under Section 9(1), with the phrase “reasonable period” in our view being subjective. The second is that the authority which has the responsibility of making available the detention order to the Magistrate has not been identified.   

“When a provision of law is vague, it would only benefit the wrongdoer. Such a provision would not uphold the Rule of Law. Thus, we are of the view that the proposed Section 9A(1) in Clause 3 cannot be considered as advancing or securing the fundamental rights of the people and is not in keeping with the current law with regard to the duty to inform any arrest or detention under PTA, found in Section 28 (1) of the HRC Act. Therefore, we are of the view that the proposed Section 9A(1) in Clause 3 in the present form would be inconsistent with Article 12(1) of the Constitution,” the determination said,   

“We also observe that Section 370(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure Act No. 15 of 1979 as amended, has made it mandatory for the Magistrate to initiate legal proceedings as amended when a report by the inquirer into Sudden Deaths has disclosed a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.