by Chitra Weeraratne

A Fundamental Rights violation application filed by Attorney-at-Law Nagananda Kodituwakku on behalf of the Vinivida Foundation, challenging the election of Acting President Ranil Wickremesinghe as a Member of Parliament was dismissed by the Supreme Court yesterday.

Justices Gamini Amarasekera, Shiran Gooneratne and Janak de Silva, after hearing extensive submissions, dismissed the application.

The Petitioner had filed the Fundamental Rights application on the basis that the provisions of Article 99A of the Constitution had not been complied with, as the nomination of Ranil Wickremesinghe, as the member elected on the National List of the United National Party, pursuant to the 2020 General elections, had been submitted outside the timeframe stipulated in the Constitution.

Deputy Solicitor General Kanishka de Silva Balapatabendi appearing for the Attorney General submitted that the stipulation that the nomination should be done within a week was a directory provision as opposed to a mandatory provision.

DSG Balapatabendi argued that the Constitution should be interpreted in a manner that realizes the aim, scope and object of the provisions and submitted that if the time limit were to be interpreted as mandatory, it would directly affect the franchise of the people and that such interpretation should be avoided.

The DSG also took up two preliminary objections that the application of the Petitioner is time barred and that the Petitioner has misrepresented facts and that his conduct does not warrant the equitable jurisdiction of Court.

Ronald Perera PC appearing with Eraj de Silva for the 9th Respondent, Ranil Wickremesinghe, associated himself with the submission made by the DSG and emphasized that the Petitioner has even failed to serve papers on the 9th Respondent.

The Petitioner had also sought to quash the Gazette by which Dhammika Perera was elected as a Member of Parliament but failed to serve notice on the relevant Respondents.

The Supreme Court, in dismissing the application yesterday morning, held that the requirement in Article 99A of the Constitution that the nomination pertaining to the election of members on the National List should be done within a week, was a directory provision and should be so construed as any other interpretation would affect the franchise of the People. The Court also found that the Petitioner has misrepresented matters to the Court.