11 July, 2020

Blog

After 02 June, Judiciary Sans Parliament – The Repository Of Judicial Power

By Jayampathy Wickramaratne

Dr Jayampathy Wickramaratne PC

There has been a very useful discussion in the public domain about the relationship between the three organs of government, especially in the present context where one organ, namely Parliament, is not functional. While Parliament has been described by some as being ‘dead’ due to it being dissolved, others point out that under the Constitution Parliament is only dormant and can be summoned in times of emergency and, under Article 70 (7), even without a formal declaration of emergency.

On the relationship between the three organs, there is an important constitutional provision that has not received enough attention. That is the relationship between Parliament and the judiciary. Under Article 4 (c), it is the People’s judicial power vested in Parliament that the judiciary exercises on Parliament’s behalf. Parliament can exercise judicial power directly only in matters relating to powers and privileges of Parliament. Article 4 (c) reads: “the judicial power of the People shall be exercised by Parliament through courts, tribunals and institutions created and established, or recognized, by the Constitution, or created and established by law, except in regard to matters relating to the privileges, immunities and powers of Parliament and of its Members, wherein the judicial power of the People may be exercised directly by Parliament according to law’.

Thus, the judicial power that courts exercise is the judicial power of the People which has been vested in Parliament. Under the Constitution, the country can be governed without Parliament, the repository of legislative and judicial power, only for three months. Unless the dormant Parliament is activated, the judiciary will function after 02 June without Parliament itself functioning, without the repository of judicial power functioning. The judiciary will function but Parliament, on whose behalf the courts exercise judicial power, will not function.

I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not saying that courts cannot function after 02 June unless Parliament meets. That is not what I mean. My submission is that the President has a duty to summon Parliament so that the repository of judicial power will function after the three-month period I referred to. If the President refuses to do so, the judiciary must intervene to ensure that Parliament functions after 02 June, so that courts as well as the repository of their power function.

One more word about the ‘dead’ Parliament. Something that is again conveniently forgotten is that the present Prime Minister and Ministers hold office today only because they were members of the so-called ‘dead’ Parliament in which the Prime Minister did not even have a majority. They owe their positions to membership of Parliament. If that Parliament is considered dead, are Ministers ‘the dead walking’?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 9
    6

    Every writer complicates things as per his or her view, Th Bottom line is should Parliament function after 2nd June. If yes under what conditions. , The other question is is the COVID cases are increasing or not If the elections are held will the figure get doubled, and the number of deaths increases. Who will be held responsible;e for tet disaster? If the President insists that election should be held ASAP and as a result number of deaths increases what action should be taken against him such as impeachment It looks as the government uses the COVID epidemic to punish the minorities who voted aginst the President. Thi vindictive attitude will bring disaster to the country and retard the growth of the economy . Let the voters thank as their decision wil decide the fate of the country Prith, Puja or Prayers will not save the country

  • 15
    5

    “it is the People’s judicial power vested in Parliament that the judiciary exercises on Parliament’s behalf”
    .
    That would only mean after 02 June the judiciary will lose even what little credibility it has now. Without the constitutional pretense, it will be exposed for what it is: the stark naked organ of Rajapaksa power lust that finds satisfaction in screwing people willing to stand up for their rights.

  • 9
    19

    Mr. Jayampathy
    As an architect of the changes to the Constitution, you have become the part of the problem. Nevertheless, you have used the correct word the President has a “duty” to reconvene parliament. However, he can not be forced to do so, as the constitution does not say, he is responsible to do so. The president is yet to violate the constitution. When 52 days government installed by Mithree by violating the constitutional provisions, the Judges said “people are supreme and the constitutional violation is the violation of people’s expectations”. So as you said the courts executed the People’s judicial power. So the court will decide under the current Global crisis, what people’s reasonable expectations are. Politically driven parties who went to court have different agendas and the Court can not judge people’s expectations from them. The mood of people is that they don’t want the previous parliament back in operation due to a few reasons.

    • 9
      2

      Atu,
      “The mood of people is that they don’t want the previous parliament back in operation due to a few reasons.”
      How do you prove it that mood of the people do not want the previous parliament? The mood of the people changes frequently depending on the situation. Unless you have a general election you wouldn’t know the mood of the people. We have seen the mood changes more frequently recently. Fake propaganda can change the mood dramatically. Huge change of mood among Sinhalese and other communities within a few months during the presidential elections that was held in 2010, 2015, 2019 was real. The recent change of Gotabaya to get a deal from USA and India, the militarisation towards dictatorship might change the mood of the people now if the election was held free and fair condition.
      Constitution is the one that doesn’t change to the mood of the people. Politicians in Srilanka are corrupt and they only look for their personal benefits, not to the benefit of the people. People expect judiciary is there to give justice, not to favour one or other.

      • 1
        3

        Ajith

        I will tell you how do I know people’s mood. Please read Daily FT article published 21st May with the title “Recovering from COVID-19 pandemic: What to expect”. Then you would understand it. 88% of people want to continue with current system until election can be held. Only 22% wants parliament back. These are figures from a scientifically run, surveys using representative samples. Some many not like these numbers but it is the reality. Remember we get leaders who is deserved for that era. Churchill served Great Britain to win World War II but people did not want him after that. That was because he was assigned to do a job for the nation. GR was selected to do a job badly needed for the nation. So we should accept people’s verdict and let him do the job. You will continually get chances to defeat him at elections. However, I doubt it as he is intelligent and he knows how to win people.

  • 10
    18

    One of the reasons is that people who wants parliament back wants to get already called nominations cancelled, not to uphold democracy. Second it is a waste of money to activate all protocol functions in parliament for no return even they don’t want their payments. Current president shown leadership to manage the crisis. People have enough reasons not to have the parliament reconvened. It is the duty of the judiciary to uphold people’s expectations.

    • 2
      1

      Do not muddle operational consequence of recalling the parliament with that of the need to be compliant with the Constitution of the land. It ain’t that complicated to comprehend!

  • 19
    7

    There goes the ‘brilliant’ drafter of the flawed 19th Amendment who epitomises the Sinhala adage ‘bale thiyenakota mole naa, mole thiyenakota bale naa’ (brainless when in power, intelligent when not in power)

  • 12
    18

    This country is facing a pandemic that has affected the whole world. Stop these hair splitting arguments about ‘Three Months Period’. If that ‘Period’ is a problem for you get a ‘Pad’ from ‘Padman’. It is free!!!

    • 8
      1

      EE,
      Yes country is facing pandemic. Arguments come only when something goes wrong. Here a family wants to use this pandemic to create a family dictatorship at the cost people’s life. You may get free “Pad” from Padman but people can’t get it.

  • 15
    11

    Interesting views from Jayampathy. Especially those on Article 4 (c) and a “walking dead” cabinet of ministers. It is important to note that, all of our three constitutions had the clause that a dissolved parliament could be recalled upon an emergency (1946-7 Constitution (s.15(5)), 1972 Constitution (s.40(2)), 1978 Constitution (art.70(7)) ). If the fact that, there is a pandemic, elections cannot be held and thus a new parliament cannot be activated on the dates proclaimed by the President, is not an emergency – then what is?

  • 0
    13

    I don’t know why Dr. Jayampathy brought this here. I thought he is opposition side lawyer. He is functioning like Ranil, who worked for opposition. If the Royals hear that SC cannot function after June 2nd, to night 4:00Am they are going to go to Hulftsdorp building and going tear it tile by tile to make sure it won’t be there by June 2nd. Interesting part is Sumanthiran PC and Dr. Jayampathy is struggling to figure it out what they wrote, only five years after of drafting it. Anyway, I don’t see Dr. Jayampathy presenting any new strong points here, after all 19A is silent on anything about what the parliament should be doing after June 2nd , then why would it talk about the court whether it should be open or closed.
    What seems to be the fact is, under 70(7), not just the parliament is not dead, dormant, but even the parliamentarians are not fired or dismissed, but only dissolved from meeting together as a parliament. Their effective firing will take place, when 70(7) goes worthless, that is when an election takes places. So the parliamentarian goes under a furlough if the parliament is dissolved under A 70. 70(7) becomes active and remain active through all the way until the election takes place. 70(7) makes an automated dissolution

  • 2
    5

    Here the emergency can be any occasion that president feels as an emergency. So that cannot override president’s will (call back); only the election can fire the parliamentarian and make the parliament as finally dismissed. It appears to be a glitch here too. Suppose that President wants to extend the term of parliament which would like to supports him, then all what he has to do is to dissolve the parliament under 70 (5) and recall it under 70(7) with an excuse of emergency and keep it as long as he wants, without conducting election. 19A seems to extremely flaw everywhere and Royals seems to be experts in exploiting it.
    We still have not seen any strong reason from petitioners’ attorneys for how the Justices are going to order president to carry out his optional function. Isn’t then the SC going to become more than the secretary at home for president, for SC to impose its options over & above president’s options?
    The SC is delivering justices on behalf of Parliament. Here is a situation parliament trying to supersede president on his spending power (he is amusing he has the power). In his way of thinking, parliament which is dead, trying to awake only because it is so particular on his spending and it was the reason he used another one of his option 70(5) & dissolved the opposition majority parliament. How the child can order the president to allow the mother to supersede on two of his options, while mother could not do it herself?

  • 25
    8

    Howe, howe, howe!
    /
    Where is this erudite legal opinion coming from? Double checked. It is from the genius who tried to give us a so-called ‘Federal’ constitution without any central control, surpassing even India!
    /
    Let’s take a look at this hair-brained opinion.
    /
    After repeating the Sumanthiran idiocy of a ‘dead’ parliament not being really dead, and he writes, apparently the judiciary takes over control of the state. Sheer bunkum, of course. Then he says that the current PM and the cabinet are in power because they were members of the ‘dead’ parliament.
    /
    Where does one begin to argue against such absolute crappy interpretations of constitution and legislation?
    /
    Is he suggesting that that the country should be handed over to the (unelected) judges to run public services? Certainly the judges wouldn’t want a bar of it!
    /
    Hasn’t this man heard of the ‘caretaker convention’ in the context of democracy and elections.
    /
    This resurfaces the question whether people of low intellectual capacity who (try to) spread myths through their idiocy should be barred from participating in public discourse.
    /
    CT, food for thought.

  • 2
    6

    Dr. Jayampathy Wickramaratne
    You have raised two vital issues. I wonder whether the Supreme Court is seized of these issues. I believe, none of the counsel has raised/argued these issues. They should.

  • 5
    3

    When EC asked the President to seek, SC advice, he said there is no issue with law for him to seek SC advice and ask them to follow the law. Then AG also said EC. So, EC followed the law and nominated an alternative election date. Now, the election cannot be held on that day either and EC will follow the law and nominate another date. This will go on until the election is held. The President says that I have no problem I will govern the country until that day as Quarantine law provides him the legal provisions to manage the situation and he does not need additional laws or help from the parliament. If the President can use Consolidated Fund money 3 months even after appointing a new parliament, his lawyers will inform SC he can run 6 months from the date of parliament dissolution using Consolidated Fund provisions. His lawyers would say, if this situation arisen after 5 years automatic parliament dissolution, same situation remains applicable until a new parliament is appointed. This is my understanding. The constitution which you had input, has enough powers to the President, even SC cannot force him to reconvene the parliament.

  • 12
    10

    Let Gotler just proclaim ” I am the new King and I rule as I please with my family. I hereby abrogate the constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka and from now on this island will be called the Kingdom of Pukshaland. The judiciary will henceforth report directly to me where I shall appoint whom ever I please as judges. I will embark on a new jail building spree to accomodate all those I decide to lockup. Anyone disobeying my orders will be arrested and locked up. From shop owners who wont sell stuff at the prices I proclaim even when that means the shop owner looses money, to those who violate my never ending curfews in desperation to get to some place vitally important to them, to those who wont socially distance, to those who do not quarantine upon quarantine upon quarantine just to fit my fancy or when I need to take revenge on people I don’t like.” Then all the racist Sinhalese will shout Jayawewa! Jayawewa! and pay obeisance to their new King! Amen.

  • 8
    8

    Funny this is coming from a person who applied “Doctrine of Necessity” to suspend and postpone elections to protect “yahapalana” setup.

    • 3
      1

      Funny Senile-i that Rajapaksa clan was politically buried by the 19A that empowered the parliament. Since then they are scared of the parliament.

      All the reason for parliament to meet before June 2. The first thing they should do – bring a no confidence motion against executive presidency. Then the president cannot dissolve parliament.

  • 12
    7

    COVID has created unprecedented situation. Parliament was dissolved but natural disaster has prevented having election within 3 months. Constitution was written by people and it has not defined guidelines to deal with situation as they have not anticipated this happening. Jayampathi and his colleagues create a constitution to satisfy Ranil who could not go beyond the hierarchy above the position of prime minister. Defense ministry should have been under the president.

    It reasonable that president have more executive power when that person is elected by the people as public have chance to get him out when his is not governing well in the presidential election. Also there is is two term limit for presidency. These are the check and balances for the presidency. Current constitution orchestrated by Jayampathi and his group divide the power between president and PM. Result was demonstrated by power struggle between Maithreepala and Ranil.
    Most rational things for the day is to president and cabinet to govern the country until election could be held safely after COVID epidermic. Compare to other third world countries , president is doing reasonable job with the help of health authorities and defense forces.
    Foul cry of old parliamentarians are because, it is proven that the country has manged well without them and people realizing minimum value of these individuals.

  • 11
    8

    Thank you for the well reasoned analysis pointing to a key aspect of an impending constitutional crisis..

  • 10
    1

    “They owe their positions to membership of Parliament. If that Parliament is considered dead, are Ministers ‘the dead walking’?”

    They are Politicians First and Politicians Last and they are Experts in getting the Best for themselves out of the Worst Situation and to Hell with the voters and the country.

  • 8
    12

    In a dead parliament , ministers “the dead walking “????? , nice one Jayampathy. . Whats new in Lankawe ?????

    • 3
      1

      Unfortunately the Crime Minister never dies.

  • 8
    3

    A rather shoddy article for someone who claims to have participated in developing constitutional amendments etc. Parliament is referred to as one of the institutions that are “honourable” as indeed the parasitic rascals that have infested it for decades on end. These fellows are called “honourable members”. Where is their honour? Thieves, murderers, rapists, chain snatchers, drug barons, illegal booze dealers, pimps and black-marketers are certainly not honourable in any way. Lawyers make their language sound sophisticated and important, somewhat like what deeds used to read like. Drafters of deeds make them deliberately incomprehensible to ordinary people, so the lawyers can make more money from deciphering them or confusing lay people. All the while, so-called “Executive” presidents release convicted killers from prison (not even commuting death penalties to life imprisonment) on grounds of personal interest with no legal justification or consultation with sentencing judges. I sincerely hope that when the Corona virus episode is over, no attempt is made to reassert the status quo of exploitation and skull duggery but a more humane and socially responsible framework is developed for the advancement of the planet and all its living beings. And to hell with legal mumbo-jumbo..!

  • 4
    0

    Jayampathi
    Quote:”One more word about the ‘dead’ Parliament. Something that is again conveniently forgotten is that the present Prime Minister and Ministers hold office today only because they were members of the so-called ‘dead’ Parliament in which the Prime Minister did not even have a majority. They owe their positions to membership of Parliament. If that Parliament is considered dead, are Ministers ‘the dead walking’?” Unquote
    This is Cow Gong you dropped to your own Pot of Milk (The main body of the article)

    47. (1) The Cabinet of Ministers functioning immediately
    prior to the dissolution of Parliament shall, notwithstanding
    such dissolution, continue to function and shall cease to function
    upon the conclusion of the General Election and accordingly, the
    Prime Minister and the Ministers of the Cabinet of Ministers,
    shall continue to function unless they cease to hold office as
    provided in sub paragraph (a) of paragraph (2) or sub paragraph
    (a) or (b) of paragraph (3) of Article 46 and shall comply with
    the criteria set out by the Commissioner of Elections and shall
    not cause any undue influence on the General Election.

    • 3
      0

      The issue of the ‘dead’ Parliament and Ministers ‘dead walking’ is not a constitutional one. Of course, the Cabinet is legal. The issue is how Pohottuwas can call it a dead Parliament when the ministers hold office by virtue of being members of the ‘dead’ Parliament.

  • 6
    2

    Now that every legal luminary is carving out some constitutional nonsense every time they write, how is it that after the 2nd of June Judiciary is vested with the powers of function (malfunction) of the parliament. In this jungle of constitutional pandiths I propose that judiciary takes over parliamentary powers. I think it is possible when the executive normally takes over the parliamentary powers in normal day?

  • 5
    1

    By the way the current attorney general ( Thappulana Livera) can takes the seat of the leader of the opposition. A well suited job for him.

  • 5
    1

    SJ, lets see the major achievements in “not so sorry lankawe” , in last two to three months other than claiming total control of Covid among public but not else where. 1) After few of the expat returnees from Qatar was found positive govt refusing any more flights because it will raise the numbers, (to their dissatisfaction) but its ok for people from Seychelles and China to get their treatment in Lanka. 2) being taken to SC for the third time to prove parliament/ministers are not dead. 3) pardoning and freeing a murderer 4)promoting a few with criminal history 5) force a few innocent into prison on concocted charges 6) keeping racial hatred alive, in the name of Covid management 7) bribe supporters in the pretext of relief work 8)use media for unofficial campaign, fake news dissemination and racial hatred 8)Get Jeyasinghe on TV to declare “the war is over” but not the casualties 6) create and disseminate FAKE NEWS against EC especially Hoole , witch intentions are not a secret anymore 7) replace govt health sector with war generals 8)pretty much fill up all essential position with military and there is many more , but CT comment policy will not allow me to continue.

    • 0
      0

      C
      I do not know why your string of questions are addressed to me?
      I am no defender of the government or for that matter any of its rivals.
      I am angry about what is going and do not hold back on criticism.
      One desirably uses civilized language in reference to individuals and especially a people.
      *

      You can go on using abusive names to refer to the country, but that will not do anybody any good.
      You will have good company here with all manner of name callers and ones who relish foul language and provocative terms of insult based on caste, race and gender.
      Good luck.

  • 1
    0

    Constitution is not a Bible but a piece of paper!

    It may be torn down in a day or two or in 5 years like the 1972 constitution.or the 1978 constitution with periodic stitches.

    It is the people who make it vibrant and lively

  • 0
    0

    I don’t mean to insult people when I quote one of my friends. “Those were the days. A KC or QC means real solid fellows. They really knew their stuff and you can be sure that there were no howlers. Today PC can either mean President’s Counsel or Police Constable”. Wasn’t author of this article was at the bottom of crafting the 19th Amendment and thereby creating an Independent Elections Commission which does not even answer to the Parliament unlike others. Why is this strange distinction? But it was the creator of this amendment created the Constitutional Council who in turn appointed the present panel of Commissioners who cannot work together and let out things in the public domain. So! Dr. JW, the possibility of a Parliament functioning beyond three months is a product of your craftsmanship. You should be a man to admit that. What an irony to expect others such as the judiciary to correct your abracadabra. There are jurisdictions where the Parliament continues to sit even after dissolution until the new Parliament meets. Don’t tell me that you didn’t know about it. Had that been there the landscape would be different. More Corona deaths.

    • 0
      0

      Good Sense
      With all due respect to you and other learned readers, can we take a little bit of trouble to read the educated comments related to the subject.
      Quote 1
      “So! Dr. JW, the possibility of a Parliament functioning beyond three months is a product of your craftsmanship. You should be a man to admit that. What an irony to expect others such as the judiciary to correct your abracadabra.”
      Quote 2
      “Bernard / May 26, 2020
      14 11
      Interesting views from Jayampathy. Especially those on Article 4 (c) and a “walking dead” cabinet of ministers. It is important to note that, all of our three constitutions had the clause that a dissolved parliament could be recalled upon an emergency (1946-7 Constitution (s.15(5)), 1972 Constitution (s.40(2)), 1978 Constitution (art.70(7)) ). If the fact that, there is a pandemic, elections cannot be held and thus a new parliament cannot be activated on the dates proclaimed by the President, is not an emergency – then what is?”

      • 0
        0

        Sisira Weragoda,

        Man, this is so difficult to explain to you & Dr.JW & Suman PC.
        (This is 19A, the master piece in the constitution, not related or parallel to what is appearing in other constitutions. This was composed to protect Ranil when he was a PM under New King and bring him back as dictator when we had won the November 2019 election. Such a brilliant piece has now backfired and King has swindle Rani’s dream Presidency and the Kingship to rule over the Lankawe)

        But anyway……

        Is that too much ink might have been lost to put it in somewhere in the constitution that ” if the election could not be held and new parliament is not convened within three months, the dissolved parliament should be recalled”?

      • 0
        0

        Dear Sisira,
        19A was crafted to dilute the Presidency and in the guise of transferring power to Parliament, gave RW an upper hand over MS who was directly elected by the people than RW. It was a fresh look how to do things without being required to conduct a referendum. If one merely copy something from the past or from neighboring countries then he or she is a copy cat who never catches rats. The reality here is on one side a President who is now empowered to draw money from the consolidated fund without even publicizing his action thus really making the absence of Parliament felt. On the other hand had the Parliament was not dissolved, although pious promises are made by the opposition it would have been such that the Corona deaths would leap frog into thousands. BOY! Not even a proper curfew where many of my friends faced the inconvenience of having two biscuits and a cup of tea for breakfast for having their life in return. Dr. JW is the least qualified to talk about remedies and suggestions because he is the main contributor. Only we have to bear the brunt of it.

        • 0
          0

          Good Sense and Mallaiyuran
          Let us be objective and not Subjective.
          The subject here is not 19A
          The Constitution 1978 without (before) amendments:
          70 (5) (a) A Proclamation dissolving Parliament shall fix a date
          or dates for the election of Members of Parliament, and shall
          summon the new Parliament to meet on a date not later than
          three months after the date of such Proclamation.
          The Constitution 1972
          41 (6) the time period is 4 months.
          “Man, this is so difficult to explain to you & Dr.JW & Suman PC.”
          There is nothing to explain in this, it spells itself to any common man.

          • 0
            0

            Jayampathy, Sumanthiran and Me

            We are virtual AMICUS CURIAE.

  • 0
    0

    SJ, living in Lanka and you claim silly, sorry and pathetic are abusive words (that too used in general and not addressing any individual), the conclusions are you really do not know the meaning of foul language or you are just hiding behind the facade of excuses. I am not hear to master a foreign language. If your intentions are to put me on a “guilt trip” , you are wasting time buddy.

  • 0
    0

    SJ, “It is you who is going around defending rogue nations such as Lankawe, Venezuela,Russia and China ) falsely accusing others of being pro West/USA “. Looks like you also have a a few for company on this crusade. Most of us have pointed out the maladies in West and USA where as I see you nothing but heaping praises. Even today ex sports person Floyd (black) was killed in police violence , in Minneapolis. which has created immense public fury. Irrespective of color and religion people have come out protesting such unjustified killings.

  • 0
    0

    Where does it say president should reconvene a dissolved parliament after three months period ? Elections commission postponed the election until 20th of July. They are entitled to do so. Nothing illegal here. It’s the duty of everyone involved to ensure the democratic right of people to vote. That’s the most important thing here not whether or not to reconvening the old Parliament.

  • 0
    0

    Proclamation of Dissolution is not a stand alone, in Article 70 (5) (a) It has (post) -requisites with the word SHALL
    I repeat
    “70 (5) (a) A Proclamation dissolving Parliament SHALL fix a date
    or dates for the election of Members of Parliament, and SHALL
    summon the new Parliament to meet on a date not later than
    three months after the date of such Proclamation.”
    If the requisites are not fulfilled, the proclamation SHALL be Null and void.
    Parliament is not DEAD, The functions are curtailed by proclamations: 70. 45[ (1) The President may by Proclamation, summon,
    PROTOGUE (and) DISSOLVE Parliament:
    Say President and PM both ( is) unable to act:
    40. (1) (a) If the office of President shall become vacant prior to the expiration of his term of office, Parliament shall elect as President one of its Members who is qualified to be elected to the office of President. Any person so succeeding to the office of President shall hold office only for the unexpired period of the term of office of the President vacating office.
    continued….

  • 0
    0

    …continuing
    (b) Such election shall be held as soon as possible after, and in no case later than one month from, the date of, occurrence of the vacancy. Such election shall be by secret ballot and by an absolute majority of the votes cast in accordance with such procedure as Parliament may by law provide :
    Provided that if such vacancy occurs after the dissolution of Parliament, the President shall be elected by the new Parliament within one month of its first meeting.
    (c) During the period between the occurrence of such vacancy and the assumption of office by the new President, the Prime Minister shall act in the office of President and shall appoint one of the other Ministers of the Cabinet to act in the office of Prime Minister :
    Provided that if the office of Prime Minister be then vacant or the Prime Minister is unable to act, the SPEAKER shall act in the office of President.
    Continuity of dissolved parliament- Please refer Article 41A(7) (a) On the dissolution of Parliament, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (2) of Article 64, the Speaker
    shall continue to hold office as a member of the Council, until
    a Member of Parliament is elected to be the Speaker under
    paragraph (1) of the aforesaid Article;
    (b) Notwithstanding the dissolution of Parliament, the
    Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Members
    of Parliament who are members of the Constitutional Council,
    shall continue to hold office as members of such Council, until
    such time after a General Election…..

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 200 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically disabled after 7 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.