DHARSHANA WERADUWAGE

VS.

 1. HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL
2. HON. RANIL WICKREMESINGHE

SUPREME COURT
B.P.ALUWIHARE.PC.J.
UPALY ABERATHNE.J.
K.T.CHITRASIRI.J.
SC FR 233/16
04.10.2016

Parliamentary privileges- Leave to appeal- Support- Article 12(1) and 14(g)-Preliminary Objection-Jurisdiction of Supreme Court- Parliament (Powers and Privileges Act)

This was a leave to appeal application. On the date of support a preliminary objection was raised as regards the maintainability of the application.

Complaint of Petitioners is regarding a statement made by the Hon. Prime Minister in response to a statement made by a member of Parliament in the course of parliamentary proceedings. Counsel for the respondent contended that the Supreme Court would not have Jurisdiction to delve into the issues raised by the Petitioners in view of Constitutional provisions that ousts the Jurisdiction.

HELD:

1. A plain reading of this constitutional provision referred to above, has no ambiguity whatsoever and the provision simply states that the judicial power of the people is to be exercised by Parliament with regard to matters relating to privileges, immunities and powers of Parliament.

In other words, a court cannot exercise its judicial power over these matters. The issue, then, that has to be decided is whether the statement made by the 2nd Respondent attracts parliamentary privileges and/ or immunity. Part 1 of the Parliamentary (Powers and Privileges) Act deals with privileges and immunities and section 3 of the Act, which comes under the said part stipulates that 'there shall be freedom of speech, debate and proceedings in Parliament and such freedom of speech debate or proceedings shall not be liable to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament, (emphasis added).

APPLICATION for leave to Appeal.

Case referred to:

Attorney General vs. Samarakkody 57 NLR 412.

Dharshana Weraduwage Petitioner present in person Viraj Dayaratne Senior DSG With Nerin Pulle DSG for 1st and 3rd Respondents.

Cur.adv.vult.

October 7, 2016

BUVANEKA ALUVIHARE PC, J.

When this matter came up for support on 4th October 2016 the learned Senior Deputy Solicitor General who represented the 1st and the 3rd Respondents (The Attorney General) and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent raised preliminary objections as to the maintainability of this application.

The petitioner who appeared in person in support of this application has complained of an imminent violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 12 (1) and 14 (1) (g) of the Constitution and has prayed for a declaration from this court to the effect that one or more of the respondents is about to infringe the petitioner's fundamental rights referred to above. The petitioner has also sought a declaration that the fundamental rights of the citizenry of the Republic, guaranteed under article 12 (1) of the Constitution is also about to be infringed.

The gravamen of the complaint of the petitioner stems from the statement made by Hon. Ranil Wickramasinghe, the Honourable Prime Minister, in response to a statement made by an honourable member of Parliament. It is significant to note that the statements, both, of the Honourable Prime Minister as well as the honourable Member of Parliament had been made in Parliament and in the course of Parliamentary proceedings.

In view of the nature of the preliminary objections raised on behalf of the respondents, I do not see a necessity to refer to the content of the statements made by the honourable member of Parliament and the 2nd respondent.

It was the contention of the Counsel for the respondents that this court has no jurisdiction to delve into the issues raised by the petitioner in view of the constitutional provisions that ousts the jurisdiction of this court.

The learned senior DSG drew the attention of this court to article 67 of the Constitution, which makes a direct reference to