SC rejects FR petition challenging national govt
The Supreme Court yesterday refused leave to proceed with the fundamental rights violation petition filed by retired rear admiral Sarath Weerasekera, former MP and Professor Wimaladharma Abeywickrame, challenging that the present administration was not a national government and could not exceed the number of Cabinet Ministers beyond 38.
The Supreme Court said that Article 67 of the Constitution of Sri Lanka and Section (3) of the Parliamentary Privileges Act Conferred Special Privilege to Parliament and they could not be challenged in any court of law.
What was debated in Parliament could not be questionable in a court of law, it said.
The FR petition against the concept of the national government debated and approved in Parliament was rejected. leave to proceed was refused.
At the ousted Manohara de Silva, President’s Counsel, said the constituent parties of the UPFA did not agree to the formation of a national government. There were 72 members of the UPFA in Parliament. The executive members of the UPFA parties never held a meeting to approve a national government, the 106 UNP members of parliament may have wanted a national government, but not the UPFA.
Hence, there could not be a national government without the UPFA coming into an agreement on the issue. A Cabinet of Ministers which went beyond 40 members could be held by a national government only.
Manohara de Silva supported a petition, which opposed a large cabinet, without the formation of a national government.
Among the respondents were the Prime Minister, Cabinet of Ministers and the Attorney General.
Cabinet should be small to safeguard the assets of the country, the Article 46(1) of the Constitution limited the number of Cabinet Ministers to only 30.
That article could not be amended by a simple majority, the counsel argued
If all the parties got together, they might decide to increase the number of ministers. One party could not get together with another with a few MPs and declare a national government, the counsel explained.
Article 46 (1) of the Constitution could not be amended with a simple majority. Article preserve the franchise of the people.
Romesh de Silva, President’s Counsel appeared for the Cabinet of Minister. He explained that if Parliament decided that it was a National government, there would be nothing for the Supreme Court to interpret.
It was in the interest of the country to form a National government. One poorly represented party should not destroy the entire concept. There was no necessity to from a National government by a main party and all the other parties. It could be the main party and one or more of the other parties in Parliament, he contended
It was not necessary that all the parties should agree, counsel explained.
K. Kanag Ishwaran, President’s Counsel appeared for the Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe.
K. Kanaga Ishwaran PC, endorsed the stand taken by Romesh de Silva PC, that what was debated and approved in Parliament, could not be challenged in court.
The Bench comprised Chief Justice K. Sripavan, Justice Sisira de Abrew and Justice Upali Abeyratne.
707 Viewers
