The Attorney General V. Samarakkody

1955 Present : H. N. G. Fernando, J.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, Applicant, and (1) E. P. SAMARAKKODY
(Member of Parliament for Dehiowita), (2) W. DAHANAYAKE
(Member of Parliament for Galle), Respondents

S. C. 489-In the matter of an Application by the Attorney-General under
Section 23 (1) of the Parliament (Powers and Privileges)
Act, No. 21 of 1953

Parliament-Offence of breach of privilege-Disrespectful conduct in the precincts of the House-Immunity of Members-Meaning and scope of expression " Proceedings in Parliament "-Jurisdiction of Supreme Court-Suspension of sitting of Souse-Condition of time limit-Ceylon Constitution Order in Council, 1946, s. 17 (5)-Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act, No. 21 of 1053, ss. 3, 4, 0, 22, 23, 25, 26.

The two respondents were members of the House of Representatives. At a sitting of the House another member, X, on being suspended from the service of the House, refused to leave the House when he was ordered by the Speaker to do so. . The Speaker thereupon ordered the Sergeant at Arms to remove the member from the House, stated " I suspend the sitting of the House ", and vacated the Chair. The mace remained on the Speaker's table. Thereafter, and before the Sergeant at Arms removed X with Police assistance obtained upon an order from the Speaker in Chambers, the 2nd respondent proposed that the 1st respondent do take the Chair, and another member seconded that motion. The Deputy Speaker and the Deputy Chairman of Committees were not in the Chamber when the motion was moved. As no objection was taken to the motion, the 1st respondent took the Chair. Thereafter X made a speech in the Chamber and continued to speak until the Sergeant at Arms entered with the Police and removed X from the Chamber. On the entry of the Sergeant at Arms with Police officers, the 1st respondent vacated the Chair.

The Attorney-General alleged inter alia in the present application made under section 23 of the Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act that the 1st respondent was guilty of disrespectful conduct in the precincts of the House (an offence specified in paragraph 7 of Part B of the Schedule to the Act) and that the 2nd respondent was guilty of abetment of the said offence of disrespectful conduct (an offence specified in paragraph 10 of Part B), . Assuming (without deciding) that the sitting of the House was validly suspended by the Speaker and that there was no occasion for the operation, of section 17 (5) of the Ceylon Constitution Order in Council, 1946, which provides that in the absence of the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker and the Deputy Chairman of Committees, at a sitting of the House, a member proposed and seconded in that behalf may preside at the sitting -

Held, that the conduct of the two respondents, even if it was disrespectful, was not justiciable by the Supreme Court. It was conduct included within the scope of sections 3 and 4 of the Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act and could not therefore be questioned or impeached in proceedings taken in the Supreme Court under section 23 of the Act. The jurisdiction to take cognisance of such conduct was exclusively vested in the House of Representatives.

Quaere, (i) whether the provisions of section 25 (2) of the Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act preclude a respondent from challenging the validity of art application made under section 23 on the ground that the application includes charges not specified in the Report furnished by the Attorney-General under section 26.

(ii) whether, on every occasion of the suspension of a sitting of the House of Representatives, it is the duty of the Speaker to give notice of the time when the sitting will be resumed.

(iii) whether paragraph 7 of Part B of the Schedule to the Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act covers only disrespectful conduct in the precincts of the House, and not such conduct in the House itself or in a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document