MR’S statement on dissolution misleading
Lawyers for Democracy, an organization of lawyers -- in a response to a statement by former president Mahinda Rajapaksa -- said yesterday it was an attempt to mislead the country by issuing an unusual statement on the dissolution of Parliament, while the matter was pending before the Supreme Court. The statement was issued by lawyers Lal Wijenayake, who headed the Public Deliberation Committee on constitution making, K.S. Ratnavale Lakshan Dias, Sudath Neththasinghe Harishka Nadeeshan and Praboda Ratnayake.
They said,“while we are confident that the judiciary of this country, whose independence has been strengthened by the 19th Amendment, will not be influenced by misleading statements of politicians, we nevertheless wish to respond to a number of factual inaccuracies in the said statement that may mislead ordinary citizens not well-versed in matters of the Constitution, especially events abroad.
Rajapaksa cites the British constitutional authority A.V. Dicey as having said that if the Crown is of the view that the opinion of the public is different to that of the majority in Parliament, the Crown has the discretion to dissolve Parliament and call a general election. Dicey who wrote Law of the Constitution as far back as in 1885, refers to the dissolution of the House of Commons in 1784 and 1834. But unknown to Rajapaksa and his advisers, and this is not surprising, the United Kingdom has since seen many changes regarding the Monarch’s power of dissolution. No British Monarch has in modern times dissolved the House of Commons without the advice of the Prime Minister. In 2011, Westminster passed the Fixedterm Parliaments Act, which lays down that an early General Election shall not be called unless the Commons requests a General Election by a two-thirds majority. An early election will also take place when a vote of no-confidence is passed against the Government unless a vote of confidence is passed within 14 days of the vote of noconfidence, that is unless a new Government is formed and is to able prove its majority in the Commons within 14 days.
But unlike the United Kingdom where there is no written constitution, Sri Lanka has a written Constitution which has clear provisions relating to dissolution.
Rajapaksa also states that in 1975, the Governor General of Australia sacked Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and called a general election entirely at his own discretion.this is furthest from the truth. Unlike in Sri Lanka, Australia has two Houses of Parliament. according to Section 57 of the Australian Constitution, if the Senate rejects or fails to pass a Bill that has been passed by the House of Representatives twice the Governor-general may dissolve both House simultaneously.
But by convention, he would do so only on the advice of the Prime Minister. In 1975, the Senate had deferred two Appropriation Bills which had already been passed by the Lower House. Prime Minister Whitlam refused to advice a dissolution and the Governor General dismissed Whitlam and appointed Malcolm Fraser as caretaker Prime Minister upon the latter undertaking to have the Bills passed in the Senate and that he would advise the Governor-general to dissolve both Houses. Before doing so, the Governor-general consulted the Chief Justice who advised him that the Prime Minister could be replaced in the given circumstances. The Governorgeneral then dismissed Whitlam, appointed Fraser as Caretaker Prime Minister and dissolved both Houses on the advice of Fraser.
Rajapaksa says that the Indian President dissolved the Lok Sabha in 1970 and 1979 on his own.this again is utterly misleading. In December 1970 President Giri dissolved the Lok Sabha upon the advice of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and a request by the Cabinet of Ministers after the Congress Party had broken up.
Although it was a minority government, it had not been defeated in Parliament on any question. In 1979, dissolution was on the advice of Prime Minister Charan Singh while the Lok Sabha was in prorogation, again on the advice of the Prime Minister.”