Unlucky 13A must go as it violates public rights: Petitioner
The 13th Amendment to the Constitution is a continued violation of the rights of the public because it was not approved by the people at a referendum as per Supreme Court decision and certified by the then President to become a law, a head of a charity NGO complained to the Supreme Court asking the law to be struck down.
As the full implementation of 13 A is imminent, there is an aspect of imminent violation of her rights as well as that of the general public, petitioner M.S. Padmapriya Siriwardana of Negombo further stated, filing her rights violation petition in the Supreme Court.
The petitioner stated that the 13th Amendment to the Constitution was passed by the Government under tremendous pressure both internally and externally. “The terrorist threat from inside and the threat of war from the neighbouring superpower India finally resulted in a forced accord signed between the two countries India and Sri Lanka," she pointed out.
She argued the then President J.R. Jaye-
The terrorist threat from inside and the threat of war from the neighbouring superpower India finally resulted in a forced accord signed between the two countries India and Sri Lanka
wardene was forced to implement the accord through the 13th Amendment to the Constitution and had to suppress public opposition to the accord.
President Jayewardene referred the 13th Amendment Bill and the Provincial Councils Bill to the Supreme for it decision to consider their constitutionality.
The majority of the Supreme Court decision was that the 13th Amendment Bill should be approved by the people at a referendum.
The Bill was passed by 136 voting for and 11 voting against it. The Bill was certified by the Speaker on November 17, 1987.
However, a referendum was not held to get the people’s approval for the Bill as intended by the majority decision of the full Bench of nine judges of the Supreme Court, the petitioner stated.
In these circumstances, the petitioner argued, that the Supreme Court has the inherent jurisdiction to intervene when there is a continued violation of the Supreme Court decision.
Therefore, she argued that 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.
The petitioner argued that the implementation of the 13th Amendment was a continued infringement of the rights of the petitioner and also there is an imminent infringement of the petitioners as well as the rights of the public in case it is fully implemented.
She sought the court to declare the 13th Amendment null and void as it infringed her rights. The petitioner cited the Attorney General, Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa and Local Government and Provincial Councils Minister A.L.M. Athaulla as respondents.