News
Counsel for petitioners stress need for protecting media freedom
20A before SC
* 19A adopted without referendum; 20A seeking to replace it needs only 2/3 – lawyers for ministers
By Chitra Weerarathne
Media freedom should be safeguarded in the future. The 19th Amendment protected media freedom. New laws should not obstruct it, Sanjeewa Jayawardene, President’s Counsel yesterday told the Supreme Court.
President’s Counsel Jayawardene appeared for two petitioners. The matter before the Court is the constitutionality of the Bill in reference to Articles 120, 121 of the Constitution.
In Sri Lanka the people were supreme. Unlike in India, where the Constitution was supreme, the counsel argued.
The state media was an instrument of the state unlike the private media, he said.
“The Election Commission is duty bound to hold a free and fair election.”
The State cannot issue guideline on private media, on the time to be allocated to different candidates. In the 19th Amendment Bill, According to the Section 26, the chairmen of the state and private media were made duty bound to comply with guidelines declared as regards, the Counsel said.
In the 19th Amendment Bill, when the people exercised franchise, under clause 4(c), they have to make an intelligent choice. “The state media is controlled. Then the private media could provide information to the reader.”
The media was linked to the exercise of franchise. The private media could help the people select candidates within the scope of truthful publicity, the counsel said. A licence under Rupavahini Corporation Act is needed to publish/ broadcast. But false publicity is not allowed. But it a dangerous to have to be controlled strictly by the state.
“In the 19th Amendment there is no interference in media freedom even in respect of state controlled media,” counsel Sanjeewa Jayawardene said.
Article 4(c) and Article (10) were violated by the 20th Amendment. The 19th Amendment did not violate media freedom. It should be maintained likewise in the future as well, he stressed.
Intervenient petitions were taken for hearing. There were seven of them among them was one by Professor G.L. Peiris, the present Minister of Education and Minister Nimal Siripala de Silva.
President’s Counsel, Gamini Marapana PC, supported the application by Professor G. L. Peiris.
The 17th Amendment was amended by the 19th Amendment because it violated franchise. It was not approved by the people at a referendum. Similarly, all the provisions of the 19th Amendment which is to be amended by the 20th need not be presented to the people at a referendum.
Amendment introduced by a special majority need not necessarily be placed before the people at a referendum to be enacted, he argued.
Chapter (12) of the Constitution explains that certain Amendments could be dealt with without a referendum.
“The provision of our constitution are amendable, according to the 13th Amendment. There need not be a referendum. The Indian Constitution was different to our constitution. A provision in the constitution could be amended by court and Parliament, without a referendum.
“19th Amendment was determined by the Supreme Court. It did not go before the people,” counsel argued.
“It is illogical to say that to remove that amendment you should go before the people.”
Counsel said that former President Maithripala Sirisena had said in public that the 19th Amendment had taken power from the President and that had made the government weak. This has been referred to following the Easter Sunday bomb blasts. The President and the Prime Minister had been pulling in different directions.”
Because of the 19th Amendment the President, who is the commander-in-chief could not be the Defence Minister, the Counsel pointed out.
In several aspects, the President from 1978 Constitution up to 2015 enjoyed greater authority over the Parliament than in France.
Now it may referred back to the 1978 situation with a two-thirds majority in Parliament. In this country there is provision to repeal the entire Constitution unlike in India.
The bench comprised the Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, Justice Buwanaka Aluwihara Justice, Sisira De Abrew, Justice Priyantha Jayawardene and Justice Vijith K. Malalgoda.
The Attorney General, Dappula De Livera PC, appeared for the state.
News
CEB seeking tariff hike while making huge profits, says opposition trade union leader
Convenor of the Samagi Joint Trade Union Alliance affiliated with the Samagi Jana Balawegaya, Ananda Palitha, yesterday (16) said that the Ceylon Electricity Board was seeking to raise electricity tariffs by 13.56% percent although it had earned a profit of more than Rs 22,000 mn.
The CEB recently submitted its proposal to the Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka (PUCSL) for an electricity tariff revision for the second quarter of this year – the period effective from April 1 to June 30.
Palitha alleged that the PUCSL, in spite of knowing the massive profit earned by the CEB, at the expense of the hapless public, had chosen to allow the state enterprise to propose an additional burden.
The economic, technical and safety regulator of the electricity industry, and the designated regulator for petroleum and water services industries, should exercise its powers in terms of the PUCSL Act No. 35 of 2002 and the Sri Lanka Electricity Act No. 20 of 2009 to provide relief, the veteran trade unionist said.
Palitha emphasised that the PUCSL had the right to intervene on behalf of electricity consumers but, unfortunately, chose to facilitate the CEB’s despicable strategy. “The proposal to increase tariffs by 13.56% was meant to divert attention. The real issue at hand is the percentage of electricity tariff reduction,” Palitha said. The former UNPer found fault with the Opposition for failing to expose the CEB.
Taking into consideration the Rs 22,000 millionplus profit, the PUCSL could order the CEB to grant relief to consumers, Palitha said, adding that the CEB and PUCSL, together, deprived electricity consumers tariff reduction in the first quarter of this year, too.
In January this year, the CEB asked for a 11.59% tariff increase though it was enjoying Rs 22,000 mn profit at that time, the trade unionist said.
Palitha said that as the PUCSL received all data available to the CEB it was fully aware of the finances of the state enterprise.
In January, 2025, regardless of the NPP government floating the idea regarding as much as a 37% tariff increase, the PUCSL granted a 20% tariff reduction (25% of Rs 22,000 mn profit), Palitha said.
According to him, as a result of relief granted to the consumers, the profits had been reduced to Rs 16,000 mn but by June 2025 profits had increased to Rs 18,000 mn and there was a need to grant tariff reduction. But, the NPP, having always lashed out at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in the run up to the presidential election, held in September 2024, started playing a different tune.
Responding to The Island queries, Palitha said that contrary to claims that the CEB proposed a 13.56% tariff increase to cover up losses caused by the importation of low-quality coal for the Norochcholai Lakvijaya coal-fired power plant, the current strategy seemed to have been adopted at the behest of the IMF.
Instead of granting tariff reduction for the third quarter in 2025, the PUCSL ordered an 18% increase, Palitha said. The trade unionist claimed that the Finance Ministry, at the behest of the IMF, directed both the CEB and the PUCSL to increase electricity tariffs by 20% in violation of the relevant Acts, he said.
Then in Oct, 2025, the CEB proposed a 6.8 % tariff increase at a time its profits were around Rs 22,000 mn. The CEB and PUCSL staged a drama over that proposal and finally, on the false pretext of the CEB’s failure to furnish its proposal on time, the revision was dropped, Palitha said. The SJB activist pointed out that the Opposition failed to highlight that consumers had been deprived of downward revision in spite of massive profits earned by the Board. “In fact, when Energy Minister Kumara Jayakody met trade unions, he very clearly declared that they were considering electricity power reduction, perhaps by 10%, 12% or 15%. But in the end nothing happened.”
Now the same drama is being enacted by the government, the CEB and the PUCSL, Palitha said.
By Shamindra Ferdinando
News
BASL protest march
Members of the BASL yesterday (16) staged a protest march over the murder of a lawyer and his wife in Akuregoda, Thalangama, last week. The BASL staged a protest march from the Supreme Court Complex to the BASL Head Office.
News
IMF MD here
Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) Kristalina Georgieva arrived in Colombo yesterday (16) for top level discussions with the government. She is scheduled to leave tomorrow (18) after meeting government authorities and key stakeholders, observing firsthand the impact of Cyclone Ditwah, and discussing ways in which the IMF could support recovery efforts and contribute to building a more resilient future for all Sri Lankans, sources said.
-
Life style2 days agoMarriot new GM Suranga
-
Business1 day agoMinistry of Brands to launch Sri Lanka’s first off-price retail destination
-
Features2 days agoMonks’ march, in America and Sri Lanka
-
Midweek Review6 days agoA question of national pride
-
Business6 days agoAutodoc 360 relocates to reinforce commitment to premium auto care
-
Opinion5 days agoWill computers ever be intelligent?
-
Features2 days agoThe Rise of Takaichi
-
Features2 days agoWetlands of Sri Lanka:
