IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application for grant of Writs of Quo warranto, Mandamus and Prohibition under and in terms of Article 140 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

CA Writ Application No. RENUKA DUSHYANTHA PERERA

76/2025 No. 365, Nagahawela Road, Kotikawatta, Angoda.

PETITIONER Vs.

HON. ANANDA WIJEPALA No. 278/24, Sanhinda Mawatha, Nagahakotuwa Road, Imbulgoda.

AND OTHERS RESPONDENTS Before: M. T. MOHAMMED LAFFAR, J. (President C/A)- Actg.

K. M. S. Dissanayake, J.

Counsel: Vishva Vimukthi with Charuka Chamupathi for the Petitioner, instructed by S. Senewirathna.

Upul Kumarapperuma PC with Chyamara Nanayakkarawasam for the 1^st Respondent.

Sumathi Dharmawardhena, ASG, PC with Madusha Thanipuliarachchi for the 3rd Respondent.

Supported on: 17. 02. 2025 Decided on: 07. 05. 2025 MOHAMMED LAFFAR, J. (President of The Court of Appeal- Actg)

The Petitioner seeks, inter alia, a writ of quo warranto to declare that the election of the 1st Respondent as a Member of Parliament is invalid and that the 1st Respondent is not entitled to hold the office of Member of Parliament. Additionally, the Petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition against the 1^st Respondent, preventing him from sitting and voting in Parliament.

When this matter was taken up for support on 17/02/2025, the learned President’s Counsel for the 1^st Respondent and the learned Additional Solicitor General (ASG) for the 3^rd Respondent raised preliminary legal objections regarding the maintainability of this application. By consent, this Court decided to dispose of the preliminary legal objections by way of written submissions.

The 1^st Respondent was elected as a Member of Parliament for the Kurunegala District and was subsequently appointed as the Minister of Public Security and Parliamentary Affairs. While serving in this capacity, the 1^st Respondent was also appointed as the Chief of Staff to the President.

The Petitioner contends that the 1^st Respondent is disqualified from being a Member of Parliament under Article 91(1)(d)(viii) of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

Under Article 91(1)(d)(viii) and Article 91(1)(e) of the Constitution, a public officer is disqualified to be elected as a member of parliament or to sit and vote in Parliament, which reads thus;

(1) No person shall be qualified to be elected as a Member of Parliament or to sit and vote in Parliament (d) if he is -

(viii) 64[a public officer or a member of the Sri Lanka State Audit Service holding any office] created after November 18, 1970, the initial of the salary scale of which is, on the date of the creation of that office, not less than the initial of the salary scale applicable, on that date, to an office referred to in item (vii) or such other amount per annum as would, under any subsequent revision of salary scales, correspond to the first-mentioned initial, It is abundantly clear that when the 1st Respondent was elected to Parliament, he was neither a public officer nor serving as Chief of Staff to the President. Therefore, his subsequent appointment to this position cannot retroactively disqualify him from membership in Parliament. The constitutional test of eligibility applies strictly to the candidate’s qualifications at the time of election, not to offices they may later assume during their parliamentary term.

The 1st Respondent’s membership in Parliament cannot be challenged through quo warranto merely because he later assumed the honorary position of Chief of Staff. It is pertinent to note that the Petitioner has not challenged the 1st Respondent’s subsequent appointment as Chief of Staff, if at all, the validity of his appointment as Chief of Staff, not his election as MP, ought to have been challenged separately, as the two are distinct and separate matters. To couple them would amount to an improper retroactive application of constitutional disqualifications.

Since the 1st Res