Bribery Commissioner V. Ranasinghe

[IN THE PRIVY COUNCIL]

1964 Present: Viscount Radcliffe, Lord Evershed, Lord Morris
of Borth-y-Gest, Lord Hodson, and Lord Pearce

THE BRIBERY COMMISSIONER, Appellant,
 and P. RANASINGHE, Respondent

PRIVY COUNCIL APPEAL No. 20 OF 1963

S. C. 4162-Bribery Tribunal Case 35/1,172/60

Constitutional Jaw-Bribery Tribunal-Persons composing the Tribunal-Invalidity of their appointment otherwise than by the Judicial Service Commission- " Judicial officer "-Amendment or repeal of alterable provisions in the Constitution of Ceylon-Jurisdiction of the Courts to look behind the amending Act to see, if it was validly passed-Requirement of Speaker's certificate-Voting and legislative power of Parliament-Bribery Act (Cap 26), as amended by Bribery (Amendment) Act No 40 of 1958, ss. 2 (1), 41, 42, 45-Courts Ordinance (Cap. 6), s, 3-'Ceylon (Constitution) Order in Council, 1946, ss. 3 (1), 18, 29 (1) (2) (3) (4), 52, 53 (1), 55 (1) (5), 56.

      The method prescribed by section 41 of the Bribery Act (as amended by section 24 of the Bribery Amendment Act No. 40 of 1958) for the appointment of members of the Panel of the Bribery Tribunal otherwise than by the Judicial Service Commission is in conflict with section 55 (1) of the Ceylon (Constitution) Order in Council, 1946, which provides that "the appointment, transfer, disciplinary control of judicial officers is hereby vested in the Judicial Service Commission ". And inasmuch as the Bribery Amendment Act of 1958, which introduced the mode of appointment of a Bribery Tribunal, did not comply with the procedural requirement imposed by the proviso to subsection (4) of section 29 of the Constitution Order in Council regarding such an amendment of the Constitution, section 41 of the Bribery Act (as amended) is invalid. Accordingly, orders made by a Bribery Tribunal convicting and sentencing a person are null and inoperative on the ground that the persons composing the Bribery Tribunal were not lawfully appointed to the Tribunal.

      The words " judicial officers" in section 55 of the Constitution are not applicable exclusively to judges of the ordinary Courts referred to in section 3 of the Courts Ordinance.

    Where an Act of Parliament involves an amendment of any alterable pro vision in the Constitution, the Speaker's certificate under section 29 (4) of the Constitution, stating that the number of votes cast in favour of the Bill in the House of Representatives amounted to not less than two-thirds of the whole number of Members of the House (including those not present), is an essential part of the legislative process necessary for amendment. The Courts of law therefore have a duty to look for the certificate in order to ascertain whether the Constitution has been validly amended. Statutory provisions enabling the subsequent reprint of an Act cannot validate an invalid Act.

      The fact that the original Bribery Act of 1954 had on it a certificate of the Speaker does not have the consequence that any subsequent amendment of that Act is automatically franked and does not need a separate certificate. Every amendment of the Constitution, in whatever form it may be presented, needs a certificate under section 29 (4).

      The legislative power of Parliament is derived from section 18 and section 29 of the Constitution. While section 29 (3) expressly makes void any Act passed in respect of the unalterable provisions entrenched in section 29 (2), which shall not be the subject of legislation, any Bill which amends or repeals any other provision in the Constitution in terms of section 29 (4) but does not have endorsed on it a certificate under the hand of the Speaker is also, even though it receives the Royal Assent, invalid and ultra vires.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (1962) 64 N. L. R. 449.

                  Neil Lawson, Q.C., with F. Tennekoon, R. K. Handoo, Ralph Milner

Click Here to Read the rest of this document