CONSTITUTIONALITY OF HURRIED BILLS CHALLENGED

Fifteen petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Constitutionality of 11 Bills hurriedly presented in parliament by the government to meet requirements of the 2013 Budget.

Petitioners are seeking a special determination of

Petitioners are seeking a special determination of the Supreme Court on these Bills

the Supreme Court on these Bills. The petitioners have challenged the constitutionality of the bills in accordance with the Supreme Court determination on the Appropriation Bill.

The petitions challenging the Bill titled “Fiscal Management Responsibility (Amendment) was filed by Centre for Policy Alternatives

and Y.M. Punchibanda.

The petitions challenging the Bill titled “Fiscal Management Responsibility (Amendment) was filed by Centre for Policy Alternatives and Y.M. Punchibanda. Mr. Punchibanda also filed a petition on the Bill titled Finance

The Petition in respect of the Bill titled “Finance” was filed by Y.M. Punchibanda. W.A. Samarasinghe and A.A.M. Nizar filed their Petitions challenging the Bill titled “Betting and Gaming Levy (Amendment)” while M.K. Hemapala filed four petitions challenging the Bills titled “Strategic Development Projects (Amendment)”; “Notaries(Amendment)”; “Powers of Attorneys (Amendment)” and “Registration of Documents (Amendment)”.

Umalgilige Piyasena filed two petitions challenging the Bills titled “Tax Appeals Commission (Amendment)” and “Value Added Tax (Amendment)”.

K.L. Premadasa and A.K.D. Upali Jayantha filed their petitions challenging the Bill titled “Inland Revenue (Amendment)” while Upali Jayantha and Hemapala Gurusinghe filed their petitions challenging the Bill titled “Nation Building Tax (Amendment).”

Ten other Bills including the 11 mentioned above mentioned were presented by the Lead- er of the House on March 8. They are as follows: (1) “Excise (Amendment)” (2) “Ports and Airports Development Levy (Amendment) (3) “Telecommunication Levy (Amendment)” (4) “Customs (Amendment)” (5) “The Customs Ordinance” (6) “Marriage Registration (Amendment)” (7) “Muslim Marriage and Divorce (Amendment)” (8) “Births and Deaths Registration (Amendment)” (9) “Kandyan Marriage and Divorce (Amendment)” and (10) “Resettlement Authority (Amendment)”. The petitioners have inter alia argued that the bills are discriminatory, arbitrary, grossly unreasonable and irrational and their rights under article 12 (1) of the constitution which guarantees equality and equal protection of the law. Some of the bills to be introduced would lead to an abdication of Parliament’s constitutionality mandated control over Public Finances, resulting in the violation of article 148 of the Constitution which states that “Parliament shall have full control over public finance. No tax, rate or any other levy shall be imposed by any local authority or any other public authority, except by or under the authority of a law passed by Parliament or of any existing law.” They informed the Supreme Court that the sovereignty of the people, the rule of law and the supremacy of the Constitution would be imperiled through the provisions of the bills. They stated that the bills are inconsistent with and in contravention of the provisions of the Constitution and thus ought not be permitted to pass validly into law through a simple majority in Parliament alone.