Top Court holds some provisions in Clause 2 of the proposed Amendment is in violation of Article 3 of the Constitution

Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena informed Parliament, yesterday, that the Supreme Court (SC) had determined that the draft bill for the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution contained certain provisions that required people’s approval at a referendum and a two thirds majority in Parliament to become law.

The SC has determined that Clause 2 of the Bill is in violation of the Article 3 of the Constitution, which ensures sovereignty of the people.

The SC has pointed out that the Bill could only be passed in Parliament, with a simple majority by amending the questionable sections.

Full text of the announcement of the Supreme Court decision by the Speaker: “I wish to announce to Parliament that I have received the Determination of the Supreme Court in respect of the Bill entitled “Twenty Second Amendment to the Constitution” which was challenged in the Supreme Court in terms of Article 121(1) of the Constitution.

On an overall consideration of the provisions of the Bill, the Supreme Court has made the following Determination:-

1. The Supreme Court states that the Bill complies with the provisions of the Article 82(1) of the Constitution and requires it to be passed by the special majority specified in Article 82(5) of the Constitution.

2. Clause 2 of the Bill contains provisions inconsistent with Article 3 read together with Article 4(b) of the Constitution and as such may be enacted only by the special majority required by Article 82(5) and upon being approved by the People at a Referendum by virtue of Article 83. However, the necessity for a Referendum shall cease if the proposed Articles 41A(6) and 41B(4) in Clause 2 are suitably amended to remove the deeming provision set out therein.

3. Clause 3 of the Bill contains provisions inconsistent with Article 3 read together with Article 4(b) of the Constitution and as such may be enacted only by the special majority required by Article 82(5) and upon being approved by the People at a Referendum by virtue of Article 83.

However, the necessity for a Referendum shall cease:

(a) if the proposed Article 44(2), the proviso to Article 44(3), Articles 45(1), 46(1), 47(3)(a), 48(3) and 50 in Clause 3 are suitably amended by deleting the reference to the President acting on the advice of the Prime Minister and replacing instead with the President acting in consultation with the Prime Minister;

(b) if the provisions of Article 47(2)(a) are restored in the proposed Article 47(2) in Clause 3.

I order that the Determination of the Supreme Court be printed in the Official Report of today’s proceedings of the House.”