Reconvening Parliament Sarath Weerasekara files FR petition

Published : 12:02 am  November 20, 2018 | No comments so far |  | 


 reads | 

Untitled-2By S.S. Selvanayagam   

Former UPFA MP Sarath Weerasekara yesterday filed a fundamental rights petition seeking a declaration from the Supreme Court that the decision taken by the Parliament Secretary General and the Attorney General to re-convene parliament was unconstitutional.  


He said the SC had already issued an interim order and hence Parliament should not be convened and said under Article 12 (1) of the Constitution his right to equality and protection of the law has been violated.   
The Speaker has been named as a respondent. 

The petitioner states that an order staying the operation of a gazette did not have the same effect of quashing the proclamation, which can only be determined at the conclusion of the argument/hearing of the main matter and as such the petitioners in the said applications were not entitled to claim the result of the final order from an interim order.  

He said as the Parliament had been dissolved by proclamation, the interim order staying the operation of the same cannot have the effect of re-convening of the Parliament, which continues to stand dissolved until the nullification or quashing of the said proclamation.  

However, on November 14 the Parliament SG (4th Respondent) made arrangements to re-convene  Parliament and the proceedings thereof were initiated after reading the Statement of the President.  

However, since the Parliament continues to stand dissolved neither the 1st Respondent nor the Speaker could summon the Parliament before the final determination of the Court effecting the quashing of the said proclamation.   
The petitioner said prior to the issue of proclamation, Parliament had been prorogued until the November 16 by the President.   

“Therefore the summoning of the Parliament disregarding the true meaning of the stay order and conducting the proceedings therein will lead to serious issues relating to the legitimacy of the Parliament and all laws and conduct of the legislature. In the circumstances the Petitioner states that if the lawfully appointed Prime Minister and the Cabinet of Ministers were dissolved on the strength of a no-confidence motion or any act initiated by the members of the opposition in collusion with the Speaker acting in violation of the Constitution and the Standing Orders of Parliament and if such Parliament having no legal sanctity continues to legislate for the nation, the legislative sovereignty of the People as well as of the Petitioner would be violated,” he said.    



  • I O stops House being reconvened
  • Interim order is different from  final order