Connect with us

Features

An autochthonous Constitution

Published

on

Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike at the Constituent Assembly

1972 Constitution in Retrospect – I

By Dr. Jayampathy Wickramaratne
President’s Counsel

This week marks the 50th anniversary of Sri Lanka becoming a republic. We observe the anniversary at a time when the large majority of our people are yearning for comprehensive constitutional reform – “system change,” as they put it. Many believe that, after the failure of the first and second republican constitutions, the time is right for the Third Republic.

This article, in three parts, is based on a paper that I contributed to a collection of essays, titled, Sirimavo, published by the Bandaranaike Museum Committee, in 2010. When Sunethra Bandaranaike invited me to contribute an essay on the 1972 Constitution, I told her that I would be unable to say much good about it. This, I explained, was despite Dr Colvin R. De Silva, the Minister of Constitutional Affairs of the United Front government who steered the constitution-making process, being a former leader of the Lanka Sama Samaja Party to which I belonged and my senior in several fundamental rights cases, beginning with Palihawadana v. Attorney-General (Job Bank Case), the first fundamental rights case, under the 1978 Constitution. “You can write anything”, Sunethra assured me. My friend, Tissa Jayatilleke, edited the publication.

Replacing the Soulbury Constitution

The Independence Constitution of 1947, popularly known as the Soulbury Constitution, conferred dominion on Ceylon. The Governor-General was appointed by the British sovereign. The Parliament of Ceylon consisted of the King/Queen, the Senate and the House of Representatives. Executive power continued to be vested in the Crown and was exercised by the Governor-General. The Cabinet of Ministers was charged with the general direction and control of the government and was collectively responsible to Parliament. The form of government was in the Westminster model, which meant that the Governor-General would act on the advice of the Prime Minister. By the oath of allegiance, Senators, Members of Parliament, and all holders of office, including the Prime Minister, Ministers and heads of departments and judicial officers, swore to ‘be faithful and bear true allegiance to the King/Queen.The first move towards making Ceylon a Republic was made by S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike, who, on becoming Prime Minister, in 1956, informed the other governments of the British Commonwealth of Ceylon’s intention to become a Republic, within the Commonwealth. A Joint Select Committee of the two Houses of Parliament, on the revision of the Constitution, accepted the principle of establishing a Republic, within the Commonwealth. It was also agreed that the parliamentary form of government would continue with the President being a constitutional head of state. The President and the Vice-President would be elected by the legislature, fundamental rights recognized, appeals to the Privy Council abolished, and a court established to adjudicate constitutional matters and hear appeals from the Supreme Court.

Although sub-section 4 of section 29 of the 1947 Constitution provided that ‘in the exercise of its powers under this section, Parliament may amend or repeal any of the provisions of this Order, or of any other Order of Her Majesty in Council in its application to the Island’, the question whether Parliament could replace the British sovereign, who was a source of the legal authority of the Constitution and a constituent part of Parliament, had been raised, among others, by J.A.L. Cooray in his Review of the Constitution. The Privy Council stated in Ibralebbe v The Queen (65 NLR 433, 443) that the reservations specified in section 29 were ‘fundamental’ and in Bribery Commissioner v Ranasinghe that section 29 (2) was ‘unalterable under the Constitution’(66 NLR 73, 78). Although obiter (not essential for the decision), these statements gave support to a move initiated by the Left parties towards a new ‘homegrown’ or ‘autochthonous’ Constitution with a complete legal break from the existing constitutional order in preference to amending the Constitution. There was also a definite trend in the Commonwealth towards enacting ‘homegrown’ constitutions to replace those given by the United Kingdom.

The Constituent Assembly route

It was this trend towards and desire for an autochthonous Constitution that led the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), the Lanka Sama Samaja Party (LSSP) and the Communist Party (CP) to not support the call of the 1965 government of Dudley Senanayake of the United National Party (UNP) to re-establish the Joint Select Committee on the Revision of the Constitution. The SLFP, LSSP and CP, which later combined to form the United Front (UF), whilst declining to serve on the Joint Select Committee, proposed that a Constituent Assembly be set up to adopt and enact a new constitution. At the general election of May 1970, the UF, as reflected in its manifesto, sought from the electorate a mandate to permit the Members of Parliament to function simultaneously as a Constituent Assembly. The Assembly would draft, adopt and operate a new constitution, the primary objective of which was to make the country a free, sovereign and independent republic dedicated to the realisation of a socialist democracy that would guarantee the fundamental rights and freedoms of all citizens.

At the above-referenced general election, 84.9% of the voters, a significantly high percentage even for an electorate known for its enthusiastic participation in elections, exercised their franchise. The UF won 116 out of 151 seats on offer but obtained 48.8% of the total votes cast. With the support of the six nominated members and the two independent members who won their seats with the help of the UF, the latter now commanded 124 seats in the 157-member Parliament. The UNP was down to 17 seats. The Federal Party (FP) won 13 seats while Tamil Congress (TC) won 03.

The Governor-General, in the course of delivering the first Throne Speech of the new Parliament, called upon the Members of Parliament to form a Constituent Assembly in keeping with the mandate asked for and given by the people at the general election.

That the Address of Thanks to the Throne Speech was passed without a division is also important. On 11 July, 1970, Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike wrote to all members of the House of Representatives to invite them for a meeting to be held on 19 July, 1970, to consider and adopt a resolution for constituting themselves into a Constituent Assembly.

The meeting was to be held at the Navarangahala, the newly constructed auditorium of Royal College, Colombo, and not in the chamber of the House of Representatives, signifying the intention of the UF to make a complete break from the 1947 Constitution. Dr Colvin R. de Silva, the Minister of Constitutional Affairs, emphasised that what was contemplated was not an attempt to create a new superstructure on an old foundation. It is a matter of great significance that all political parties, represented in Parliament, participated in the formation of the Constituent Assembly on 19 July, 1970.

J.R. Jayewardene, the Leader of the Opposition and Deputy Leader of the UNP, joining the debate on the resolution to set up a Constituent Assembly, reminded the UF that it had a mandate only from less than 50% of the people. Nevertheless, if both sides of the legislature, the victors and the vanquished, agreed to make common cause in enacting a new basic law through a legal revolution, that new law, if accepted by the people, will become the full expression of the hopes, desires and aspirations of the present generation.

V. Dharmalingam of the FP, while questioning the need to go outside the existing Constitution, noted: “We are making common cause with you in enacting a new Constitution not as a vanquished people but as the representatives of a people who have consistently at successive elections since 1956 given us a mandate to change the present Constitution which has been the source of all evil to the Tamil people.”

The leader of the FP, S.J.V. Chelvanayakam, urged the Assembly to reach common ground on controversial issues and quoted Jawaharlal Nehru in support: “We shall go to the Constituent Assembly with the fixed determination of finding a common basis for agreement on all controversial issues.”

V. Anandasangaree, speaking on behalf of the TC, stated that his party did not wish to be a stumbling block but requested the Government to be fair and adopt the new Constitution unanimously.

Indicating the acceptance of the Constituent Assembly route towards the adoption of a new constitution by all political parties, the proposed resolution to form the Constituent Assembly was unanimously passed on 21 July 1970.

It is significant that all political parties represented in Parliament participated in the formation of the Constituent Assembly, thus giving legitimacy to the process. However, the Constitution that the Constituent Assembly adopted lacked similar legitimacy. The Federal Party discontinued participation after the Assembly decided to make Sinhala the only official language. The United National Party voted against the Constitution. With all political parties agreeing on the Constituent Assembly process, it was a unique opportunity to adopt a constitution that had the support of the people at large. But Assembly proceedings show that the United Front, which had a two-thirds majority but had received a little less than 50% of the popular vote, imposed a constitution of its choice. The Constitution also extended the term of the legislature by two years which had a chilling effect on Sri Lankan democracy. There is certainly a lot to learn from the 1970-72 reform process.

Retaining the parliamentary form of government

Whilst the desire of the UF was to make a complete break from the Soulbury Constitution modelled on the British system, it nevertheless considered the Westminster model of parliamentary government to be suitable for Sri Lanka.

However, J.R. Jayewardene proposed the introduction of an executive presidency, a proposal opposed even by Dudley Senanayake, a former prime minister and the leader of the UNP. Interestingly though, Jayewardene was to have the last word. After he was elected Prime Minister in 1977, the UNP he led having obtained an unprecedented five-sixths majority in Parliament, Jayewardene introduced the executive presidency through the Second Amendment to the 1972 Constitution. He followed it up with the Second Republican Constitution of 1978, based on an executivepresidency sans any checks and balances usually found in countries with a presidential form of government.

It is salutary, in the above context, to recall the words and sentiments expressed by Sirimavo Bandaranaike during the debate on the Second Amendment to the Constitution: “The effect of this amendment is to place the President above the National State Assembly. Above the law and above the courts, thereby creating a concentration of State power in one person, whoever he might be. This has happened in other countries before, and history is full of examples of the disastrous consequences that came upon such nations that changed their Constitutions by giving one man too much power. (…) We oppose this Bill firmly and unequivocally. It will set our country on the road to dictatorship and there will be no turning back. This Bill will mark the end of democracy in Sri Lanka, as the late Dudley Senanayake realized when these same ideas were put to him in the United National Party.”

Dr De Silva warned against the danger of counterposing the Prime Minister chosen by the people who are sovereign against a President who is directly elected: “Let me put it directly and more strongly. You have the Prime Minister chosen by the people who are sovereign. Then, if you have a President, chosen also by the sovereign people directly through the exercise of a similar franchise, you have at the heart and apex of the State two powers counterposed to each other, each drawing its power from the same source, the sovereign people, but each drawing the power independent of the other.” No Constitution will be able to define adequately and satisfactorily the relationship between the two, he explained.

(Next: Part II: A Majoritarian Constitution)



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

Illegal solar push ravages Hambantota elephant habitat: Environmentalist warns of deepening crisis

Published

on

Land earmarked for the project

A large-scale move to establish solar power plants in Hambantota has triggered a major environmental and social crisis, with more than 1,000 acres of forest—identified as critical elephant habitat—cleared in violation of the law, environmental activist Sajeewa Chamikara said.

Chamikara, speaking on behalf of the Movement for Land and Agricultural Reform, said that 17 companies have already begun clearing forest land along the boundaries of the Hambantota Elephant Management Reserve. The affected areas include Sanakku Gala, Orukemgala and Kapapu Wewa, which are known to be key elephant habitats and long-used movement corridors.

He said that what is taking place cannot be described as development, but rather as a large-scale destruction of natural ecosystems carried out under the cover of renewable energy expansion.

According to Chamikara, the clearing of forests has been carried out using heavy machinery, while large sections have also been deliberately set on fire to prepare the land for solar installations. He said that electric fences have been erected across wide stretches of land, effectively blocking elephant movement and fragmenting their natural habitat.

“These forests are not empty lands. They are part of a living system that supports wildlife and nearby communities. Once destroyed, they cannot be easily restored,” he said.

The projects in question include a 50 megawatt solar development undertaken by five companies and a larger 150 megawatt project implemented by 12 companies. The larger project is reported to be valued at around 150 million US dollars.

Chamikara stressed that these projects are being carried out in a coordinated manner and involve extensive land clearing on a scale that raises serious environmental concerns.

He further alleged that certain companies had paid about Rs. 14 million to secure support and move ahead with the projects. He said this points to a troubling failure of oversight by state institutions that are expected to protect forests and wildlife habitats.

“This is not only an environmental issue. It is also a serious governance issue. The institutions responsible for protecting these lands have failed in their duty,” he said.

Chamikara pointed out that under the National Environmental Act, any project of this scale must receive prior approval through a proper Environmental Impact Assessment process.

He said that clearing forest land before obtaining such approval is a direct violation of the law.

He added that legal requirements relating to archaeological assessments had also been ignored. Under existing regulations, large-scale land clearing requires prior evaluation to ensure that sites of historical or cultural value are not damaged.

“The law is very clear. You cannot go ahead with projects of this nature without proper approval. What we are seeing is a complete disregard for legal procedure,” Chamikara said.

The environmental impact of these activities is already becoming visible. With their natural habitats destroyed, elephants are increasingly moving into nearby villages in search of food and shelter. This has led to a sharp rise in human-elephant conflict in several areas.

Areas such as Mayurapura, Gonnooruwa, Meegahajandura and Thanamalvila have reported increasing encounters between humans and elephants. According to Chamikara, more than 5,000 farming families in these areas are now facing growing threats to their safety and livelihoods.

 

He warned that farmers are being forced to abandon their lands due to repeated elephant intrusions, while incidents involving damage to crops and property are rising. There have also been increasing reports of injuries and deaths among both humans and elephants.

“This is turning into a serious social and economic problem. When farmers cannot cultivate their lands, it affects food production, income and rural stability,” he said.

Chamikara also raised concerns about the broader environmental consequences of clearing forests for solar power projects. While renewable energy is promoted as a solution to reduce carbon emissions, he said that destroying forests undermines that goal.

“Forests play a key role in absorbing carbon dioxide. When you clear and burn them, you are increasing emissions, not reducing them. That defeats the purpose of promoting solar energy,” he explained.

He added that large-scale deforestation in dry zone areas such as Hambantota could also affect local weather patterns and reduce rainfall, which would have further negative impacts on agriculture and water resources.

Chamikara called for a shift in policy, urging authorities to focus on more sustainable approaches to solar power development. He said that rooftop solar systems on homes, public buildings and commercial establishments should be given priority, as they do not require clearing large areas of land.

He also recommended that solar projects be located on degraded or abandoned lands, such as areas affected by past mining or other low-value lands, rather than forests or productive agricultural areas.

“Renewable energy development must be done in a way that does not destroy the environment. There are better options available if there is proper planning,” he said.

Chamikara urged the Central Environmental Authority and the Department of Wildlife Conservation to take immediate action to stop ongoing land clearing and investigate the projects. He stressed that all activities carried out without proper approval should be halted until legal requirements are met.

He warned that failure to act now would lead to long-term environmental damage that could not be reversed.

“If this continues, we will lose not only forests and wildlife, but also the balance between people and nature that supports rural life. The consequences will be felt for generations,” he said.

The situation in Hambantota is fast emerging as a critical test of whether development goals can be balanced with environmental protection. As pressure grows, the response of authorities in the coming weeks is likely to determine whether the damage can still be contained or whether it will continue to spread unchecked.

By Ifham Nizam

Continue Reading

Features

Why Mahatma Gandhi’s teachings need to be at the heart of conflict resolution

Published

on

Mahatma Gandhi

All credit to the Tamil Nadu government for taking concrete measures to perpetuate the memory of the renowned Mahatma Gandhi of India, who on account of his moral teachings stands on par with the likes of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Confucius and Jalaluddin Rumi, to name a few such all-time greats. The time is indeed ripe to draw the world’s attention to the Mahatma’s humanistic legacy which has resonated in the hearts of peace-oriented sections the world over down the decades.

Under its mega developmental blueprint titled ‘ Tamil Nadu 2030’, the Tamil Nadu government, among other things, intends transforming villages into centres of economic growth in conformity with the Mahatma’s vision of making the village the fundamental unit of material and spiritual advancement. Thus will come into being the ‘Uttamar Gandhi Model Villages Project’, which will be initially covering 10 village Panchayats. (Please see page 3 of The Island of March 11, 2026).

The timeliness of remembering and appreciating anew the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi resides in the utter lawlessness that has been allowed to overtake the world over the last few decades by none other than those global powers which took it upon themselves to usher in a world political and economic order based on the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Mainly in ‘the dock’ in this regard are the permanent members of the UN Security Council.

As is plain to see, the international law and order situation has veered out of control. Principal priorities for the international community or what’s left of it is to prevent the current mainly regional war in the Middle East from degenerating dangerously into another world war, coupled with the task of eliminating the possibility of another nuclear holocaust.

The most scorching of ironies is that the world’s ‘number one power’, the US, has virtually lost its way in the ‘Global Disorder’ it has been party to letting lose. For instance, instead of making good its boast of militarily neutralizing Iran and paving the way for the constant flow of fuel and gas from the Strait of Hormus by itself and Israel, it is now appealing to the rest of the West to come to its assistance. Not surprisingly, US allies are indicating their unwillingness to help pull the US’ ‘chestnuts out of the fire’.

Oil and gas are the veritable life blood of countries and going ahead it should not come as a surprise if impatience gets the better of the major powers and the nuclear option is resorted to by some of them under the dangerous illusion that it would be a quick-fix to their growing economic ills and frustrations.

All the above and more are within the realms of the possible and the need is pressing for humanistic voices to take centre stage in the present runaway crisis. As pointed out in this column last week, Realpolitik has overtaken the world and unless the latter is convinced of the self-destructive nature of the major powers’ policy of ‘meeting fire with fire’ to resolve their disputes, annihilation could be the lot of a good part of the world.

For far too long the voice of humanity has been muted and silenced in the affairs of world by the incendiary threats and counter-threats of the big powers and their allies. No quarter has been bold enough in these blood pressure-hiking slanging matches to speak of the need for brotherly love and compassion among nations and countries. But it’s the language of love and understanding that is the most pressing need currently and the Mahatma in his time did just that against mighty odds.

At present the US and Iran are trading threats and accusations over military-related developments in the Gulf and it’s anybody’s guess as to what turn these events will take. However, calming voices of humanity and moderation would help in deescalating tensions and such voices need to go to the assistance of the UN chief and his team.

The Mahatma used the technique of ‘Satyagraha’ or the policy of non-violent resistance to oppose and dis-empower to a degree the British empire in his time and the current major powers would do well to take a leaf from Gandhi. The latter also integrated into the strategy of non-violent resistance the policy of ‘Ahimsa’ or love and understanding which helped greatly in uniting rather than alienating adversaries. The language of love, it has been proved, speaks to the hearts and minds of people and has a profoundly healing impact.

Mahatma Gandhi defined the ideal of ‘Ahimsa’ thus: ‘In its positive form, “Ahimsa” means the largest love, the greatest charity. If I am a follower of “Ahimsa”, I must love my enemy or a stranger to me as I would my wrong-doing father or son. This active “Ahimsa” necessarily includes truth and fearlessness.’ (See; ‘Modern Indian Political Thought; Text and Context’ by Bidyut Chakrabarty and Rajendra Kumar Pandey, Sage Publications India, Pvt. Ltd., www.sagepub.in).

In the latter publication, the authors also defined the essence of ‘satyagraha’ as ‘protest without rancour’ and this is seen as ‘holding the key to his entire campaign’ of non-violent resistance. From these perspectives, the teaching, ‘hatred begets hatred’ acquires more salience and meaning.

Accordingly, the voice of reason and love needs to come centre stage and take charge of current international political discourse. The UN and allied organizations which advocate conflict resolution by peaceful means need to get together and ensure that their voices are clearly heard and understood. The global South could help in this process by seeing to the vibrant rejuvenation of organizations such as the Non-aligned Movement.

An immediate task for the peace-oriented and well meaning is to make the above projects happen fast. In the process they should underscore afresh the profound importance of the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi, who is acclaimed the world over as a uniting and healing political personality and prophet of peace.

If the Mahatma is universally acclaimed, the reason is plain to see. Put simply, he spoke to the hearts and minds of people everywhere, regardless of man-made barriers. The language of peace and brotherhood, that is, is understood by everyone. The world needs more prophets of peace and reconciliation of the likes of the Mahatma to drown out the voices of discord and war-mongering and ensure that the language of humanity prevails.

Continue Reading

Features

Exciting scene awaits them …

Published

on

The Future Model Hunt extravaganza, organised by Rukmal Senanayake, and advocacy trainer Tharaka Gurukanda, held in late January 2026, has brought into the limelight four outstanding contestants who will participate, at the international level, this year – Sandeepa Sewmini, Demitha Jayawardhana, Diwyanjana Senevirathna, and Nimesha Premachandra.

Nimesha took the honours as Mrs. Tourism Sri Lanka 2026 and was featured in The Island of 05th March,

Sandeepa Sewmini was crowned Miss Supranational 2026 and will represent Sri Lanka at the big event to be held in Poland later in the year.

A Business Management and Human Resources student, she will be competing under the guidance of Rukmal Senanayake from the Model With Ruki – Model Academy & Agency.

The Mister Supranational Sri Lanka crown went to Demitha Jayawardhana, a 20-year-old professional model and motocross rider.

Apart from modelling he is engaged in his family business.

Demitha Jayawardhana: Mister Supranational Sri Lanka 2026

Demitha is also a badminton player with a strong passion for sports, fitness and personal growth.

In fact, he is recognised for his strength, discipline, and passion for fitness.

A past student of Wycherley International School and St Peter’s College, Colombo, Demitha is currently in his second year of Economics Management at the Royal Institute of Colombo.

He will represent Sri Lanka at the 10th edition of the Mister Supranational pageant, in Poland, in August, 2026.

Mister and Miss Supranational are annual international beauty pageants, held in Poland, and are designed to discover new talent for the modelling and television industries and produce instant celebrities.

The competition focuses on elegance, intelligence, and social advocacy, with contestants, representing their countries.

The newly appointed Miss Teen International Sri Lanka 2026 is Diwyanjana Senevirathna.

She was crowned at the Future Model Hunt and will represent Sri Lanka at the Miss Teen International 2026 pageant in India.

Diwyanjana is noted for her grace and dedication to representing the country at this prestigious event that aims to celebrate talent, intelligence, charm, and individuality, and provide a platform for young girls to showcase their skills.

Continue Reading

Trending