FR case against 13A unsuccesful

The Supreme Court yesterday upheld the preliminary objections raised by the Attorney General and refused to grant leave to proceed with the fundamental rights petition against the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.

The Bench comprised Chief Justice Mohan Peiris and Justices Chandra Ekanayake and Priyasath Dep.

Petitioner M.S.Padmapriya Siriwardane of Negombo, the head of a charity NGO, cited the Attorney General, Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa and Local Government and Provincial Councils Minister A.L.M.Athaulla as Respondents.

S.V.R.A.Samarasinghe appeared for the Petitioner. Deputy Solicitor General Indika Demuni de Silva appeared for the Attorney General.

Petitoner sought the Court to declare that the 13th Amendment to the Constitution is null and void as it infringes on her rights.

She complained that as the full implementation of the 13th Amendment is imminent, there is an aspect of imminent violation of the rights of the public as it was not approved by the people at a Referendum as per the decision of the Supreme Court and certified by the then president to become a law.

She stated the 13th Amendment was passed by the Government under tremendous pressure both internally and externally. She stated that the terrorist threat from inside and the threat of war from the neighbouring superpower, India, finally resulted in a forced accord signed between India and Sri Lanka.

The then president, J.R.Jayewardene, was forced to implement the accord through the 13th Amendment and had to suppress public opposition to the accord, she lamented.

She stated the 13th Amendment was passed by the Government under tremendous pressure both internally and externally

President Jayewardene referred the 13th Amendment Bill and the Provincial Councils Bill to the Supreme Court for its determination to consider their constitutionality, she stated.

The decision of the majority of the Supreme Court was that the 13th Amendment Bill should be approved by the people at a Referendum, she stated.

The Bill was passed by 136 voting for and 11 voting against it, and the Bill was certified by the Speaker on November 17, 1987, she further stated.

However, a Referendum was not held to get the people’s approval for the said Bill as intended by the majority decision of the Supreme Court of the full Bench of nine judges, she contended.

The Supreme Court has the inherent jurisdiction to intervene when there is a continued violation of a Supreme Court decision, she stated.

Therefore, the Supreme Court has the inherent power to hear the Petition even if her rights plea is outside the fundamental rights jurisdiction of the Court, she contended.

She maintained that the implementation of the 13th Amendment is a continued infringement of her rights and there would be an infringement of the rights of the public and her own rights if it was fully implemented.