{"id":99028,"date":"2013-08-06T00:07:12","date_gmt":"2013-08-05T18:37:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/?p=99028"},"modified":"2013-08-08T12:00:28","modified_gmt":"2013-08-08T06:30:28","slug":"cpa-on-constitutionality-of-bill-titled-the-twenty-first-amendment-to-the-constitution","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/cpa-on-constitutionality-of-bill-titled-the-twenty-first-amendment-to-the-constitution\/","title":{"rendered":"CPA On Constitutionality Of Bill Titled \u2018The Twenty First Amendment To The Constitution\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"
A Bill titled \u201cThe Twenty First Amendment to the Constitution<\/em><\/a><\/span>\u201d, a Private Member\u2019s Bill presented by the Ven. Athuraliye Rathana Thero, M.P. of the Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU)<\/a><\/span>, was placed on the Order Paper of Parliament on 18th\u00a0<\/sup>June 2013. The proposed Bill, if passed by Parliament would have the effect of repealing Chapter XVIIA of the Constitution, which was introduced by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) filed a\u00a0petition<\/a><\/span>\u00a0in the Supreme Court on 24th<\/sup>\u00a0June 2013 challenging the\u00a0constitutionality of this Bill.<\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>

Dr Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu - Executive Director - CPA<\/p><\/div>\n

According to\u00a0Article 154(G)(2)<\/a><\/span>\u00a0of the Constitution, no Bill for the amendment or repeal of the provisions of Chapter XVIIA becomes law, unless it has been referred by the President, after its publication in the Gazette and before it is placed to the Order Paper of Parliament, to every Provincial Council.\u00a0Since no\u00a0Provincial Council had been consulted in respect of this Bill, CPA contended that it cannot be enacted into law unless there was due compliance with the mandatory provisions of Article 154(G) (2). CPA believes this is an important procedure designed and included in the Constitution to\u00a0encourage consultation and co-operation between Provincial Councils and the central government, and as a crucial safeguard for provincial autonomy under the scheme of devolution introduced by the Thirteenth Amendment.<\/p>\n

During the course of argument before the Supreme Court, the judges hearing the case raised the concern \u2013 shared by Counsel representing the Attorney General\u2019s Department as well as the Intervenient-Petitioners \u2013 that the Court\u2019s jurisdiction is limited to Article 120 proviso (a) in the case of a Bill for the amendment of the Constitution. In response to this suggestion, CPA in its \u201cfurther written submissions<\/a><\/span>\u201d contended that Article 154(G)(2) was a specific provision brought about by the Thirteenth Amendment for safeguarding devolution, which was not contemplated at the time of the enactment of Article 120 in 1978. Since Article 154(G) (2) creates a specific requirement of consultation in relation to a specified and limited category of constitutional amendments (i.e., those affecting the provisions of Chapter XVIIA), it seemed clear to us that the specific provisions of Article 154(G) (2)\u00a0must be given effect to in this case, where the impugned Bill sought to abolish Chapter XVIIA as a whole. This contention was based on the need to give provisions of the Constitution a purposive and workable interpretation, as opposed to an interpretation, which would make certain provisions meaningless and irrelevant. Therefore it was CPA\u2019s position that after the enactment of the Thirteenth Amendment, the restrictive interpretation suggested in relation to Article 120 was no longer reasonably possible.<\/p>\n

There was a further objection that\u00a0Section 3 of the Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act<\/a><\/span>\u00a0precludes the Supreme Court from inquiring into the validity of the process by which Bills are placed on the Order Paper of Parliament. In response, CPA contended that the identical objection had been taken up in a previous case in which the Court had dealt exhaustively with the reasons as to why this objection was not correct. CPA also drew the attention of the Court to several of its own judgments, which inquired and pronounced upon the question of\u00a0as to whether a Bill was properly placed on the Order Paper of Parliament.<\/p>\n

In its\u00a0Special Determination<\/a><\/span>\u00a0on the Twenty First Amendment to the Constitution Bill, which was placed before Parliament on 12th\u00a0<\/sup>July 2013, the Supreme Court stated that:<\/p>\n