EC’s counsel Choksy calls for the dismissal of petitions

Three counsel represent the Election Commission (EC) in the Fundamental Rights (FR) cases filed by eight petitioners challenging the dissolution of Parliament and the fixing of June 20 as the date for the Parliamentary polls.

One of them is V.K. Choksy PC. He told court that petitions had been filed with an ulterior political motive and therefore they should be dismissed and the Election Commission should be given the discretion to decide the date of the poll.

Representing the EC in five FR petitions, he said rescinding the March 2 presidential proclamation dissolving parliament and the Gazette was an action that came within the President’s discretionary powers.

“It is a discretionary power vested in him by the Constitution. Any action to supersede that would result in the violation of our Constitution,” he said while urging that this should certainly not be done by the court.

In the five FR petitions, he appeared on behalf of Election Commission Chairman Mahinda Deshapriya, Commission member Nalin Abeysekere PC and Commissioner General Saman Rathnayaka.

Saliya Peiris represented the EC in other three petitions while EC member Ratnajeevan Hoole, was represented by Astika Devendra.

Countering the petitioners’ argument on the legality of accepted nominations on March 16, 17, 18 and 19 which were declared as ‘Special Public holidays’, Mr Choksy brought to the attention of court that March 16 did not fall within the First Schedule of the Holidays Act No: 29 of 1971 or a Sunday or a Poya day as the law indicated. Therefore, he argued that even if it was a public holiday, it still did not vitiate the nominations thus being accepted on those days.

With regard to the issue raised by the petitioners that the present pandemic did not permit parties and or candidates to canvass and or hold meetings ahead of polls, Mr

Chocksy said it was not a necessary part of a free and fair election by pointing out that candidates in the recent past had carried out election propaganda activities through different modes such as electronic media and the social media.

Countering arguments placed before court comparing similarities between Sri Lanka’s and the United Kingdom’s Parliament, Mr Chocksy said, “Our Constitution does not provide for Parliament to have perpetual life.” He pointed out that our Constitution was an Executive Presidential Constitution where the President had very much more power than the UK’s head of State, the Queen.

On the question that Parliament has to meet because that mandatory three-month period has lapsed, the court was told that it was an unfettered discretion of the President to reconvene Parliament and that too in limited circumstances such as emergencies, which, in this instance, did not exist.