The writ petition was filed in the Court of Appeal challenging the authority of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa to hold office as Prime Minister, after a No-Confidence Motion (NCM) was passed against him in Parliament.
On November 26, 2018 - United National Party (UNP) leader Ranil Wickremesinghe and 121 other parliamentarians had filed a writ petition seeking an order in the nature of Quo Warranto declaring that Mahinda Rajapaksa is not entitled to hold the office of Prime Minister.
The petitioners further sought an order in the nature of Quo Warranto declaring that 49 respondents, including then Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa and the ministers of the incumbent government, are not entitled to hold the office of ministers of the Cabinet of ministers and deputy ministers.
The petitioners, the Members of Parliament representing the UNP, Tamil National Alliance (TNA), Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) and several other parties, filed this petition naming 49 persons, including then Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa, Cabinet Ministers and Deputy Ministers as respondents.
Court of Appeal Justice (President) Preethi Padman Surasena and Justice Arjuna Obeysekara fixed the petition for support on November 30 and December 3, 2018.
On November 30, 2018 - Then Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa and other respondent parties raised preliminary objections against the writ petition. They moved the Court of Appeal that the petition be dismissed in limine. The Court of Appeal commenced hearing into the writ petition and was fixed for further support on December 3, 2018.
On December 3, 2018 - The Court of Appeal issued an Interim Order restraining then Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa, the ministers of the Cabinet ministers and deputy ministers from holding their offices until the final determination of a writ petition filed by 122 Parliamentarians.
Court of Appeal Justice (President) Preethi Padman Surasena and Justice Arjuna Obeysekara made this order and issued notices on the respondents and directed them to show by what authority they hold offices.
‘It was the view of this Court that the damage that may be caused by temporarily restraining a lawful Cabinet of Ministers from functioning would in all probabilities be outweighed by the damage that would be caused by allowing a set of persons who are not entitled in law to function as the Prime Minister or the Cabinet of Ministers or any other Minister of the Government. The magnitude of the latter damage would be very high. Such damage would be an irreparable or irremediable one. Such damage would also have far reaching consequences to the whole country,’ the Court of Appeal had observed.
The Court of Appeal had further observed that this order would not affect the country since the Interim Order would only prevent respondents (individuals) from functioning as public officers. The Court was of the view that Parliament passed Vote of No-Confidence against the Government with a majority on two occasions on November 14 and 16. The Court also recognised the national importance of the petition and thereby decided to issue an Interim Order that would affect until the final determination of this petition.
On December 4, 2018 - Then Parliamentarian Mahinda Rajapaksa filed an appeal in the Supreme Court challenging the Court of Appeal Interim Order restraining him from functioning as the Prime Minister until a final determination is reached with regard to the Quo Warranto writ petition filed by 122 Parliamentarians, including Ranil Wickremesinghe.
Through this appeal petition, Parliamentarian Mahinda Rajapaksa sought an order to set aside the Interim Order dated December 3 by the Court of Appeal.
On December 12, 2018 - The writ petition filed by 122 parliamentarians who sought an order in the nature of Quo Warranto declaring that Mahinda Rajapaksa and 48 others are not entitled to hold the office of Prime Minister, Ministers of Cabinet and Deputy Ministers respectively was fixed for argument by the Court of Appeal. Subsequently, these petitions were withdrawn by the petitioners themselves.
On December 13, 2018- Filing a motion before Supreme Court, Parliamentarian Ranil Wickremesinghe sought a fuller Bench comprising more than five judges of Supreme Court to hear a Special Leave to Appeal application filed by Parliamentarian Mahinda Rajapaksa challenging the Court of Appeal Interim Order that restrained him from functioning as the Prime Minister.
On December 14, 2018 - The Supreme Court three-judge-bench comprising Justice Eva Wanasundera, Buwaneka Aluvihare and Justice Vijith K. Malalgoda unanimously refused to set aside the Interim Order issued by the Court of Appeal restraining Mahinda Rajapaksa and 48 others from functioning as Prime Minister, Cabinet of Ministers, State Ministers and Deputy Ministers respectively.
However, a plurality decision of the Supreme Court three-judge-bench decided to grant leave to appeal with four appeal petitions filed by Parliamentarian Mahinda Rajapaksa and several others. Justice Vijith K. Malalgoda made a dissenting order to reject these appeal petitions in limine.
Thirteen Fundamental Rights (FR) petitions were filed in Supreme Court challenging the President’s gazette notification to dissolve Parliament on November 9.
On November 12, 2018 - Thirteen FR petitions were filed in the Supreme Court by several political parties and individuals seeking an Interim Order to stay the operation of President’s proclamation to dissolve Parliament which published in the Gazette Extraordinary.
These petitions had been filed through TNA leader R. Sampanthan, UNP General Secretary Kabir Hashim, JVP leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake, SLMC leader Rauff Hakeem, All Ceylon Makkal Congress party leader Rishad Bathiudeen, R.A.S.D. Perera, Prof. S. Ratnajeevan H. Hoole, former MP Mano Ganesan, Attorney-at-law Lal Wijenayake, G.C.J. Perera, Attorney-at-law Aruna Laksiri, Attorney-at-law Nagananda Kodituwakku and Chamara Sumanapala.
On November 13, 2018 - The Supreme Court three-judge-bench comprising Chief Justice Nalin Perera, Justice Priyantha Jayawadena and Justice Prasanna Jayawardena unanimously issued an Interim Order staying the operation of the gazette notification issued by the President to dissolve Parliament.
This Interim Order was issued to be effective until December 7, 2018.
Supreme Court further issued an Interim Order restraining the Election Commission from proceeding to take any steps to conduct the Parliamentary election by virtue of the proclamation until December 7, 2018.
On November 16, 2018 - Prof. G.L. Peiris and four others filed a motion in Supreme Court seeking a fuller bench comprising more than five judges of Supreme Court to hear FR petitions which challenged the gazette notification issued by the President to dissolve Parliament.
On November 26, 2018 - The Chief Justice nominated a fuller bench comprising seven judges of Supreme Court to hear several FR petitions which challenged the gazette notification issued by the President to dissolve Parliament.
A seven-judge-bench comprising Chief Justice Nalin Perera, and Justices Buwaneka Aluvihare, Sisira de Abrew, Priyantha Jayawardena, Prasanna Jayawardena, Vijith K. Malalgoda and Murdu Fernando, was appointed to hear these petitions on December 4.
On December 4, 2018 - The Supreme Court seven-judge-bench headed by Chief Justice Nalin Perera commenced hearing arguments into several FR petitions filed challenging the President’s decision to dissolve Parliament.
On December 5, 2018 - The Attorney General informed that Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to hear the impugn conduct of the President (dissolution of Parliament) through a Fundamental Rights jurisdiction under Article 126 of the Constitution.
On December 6, 2018 - The Supreme Court seven-judge-bench headed by Chief Justice Nalin Perera further extended till December 8, the Interim Order staying the operation of the Gazette notification issued by the President to dissolve Parliament.
On December 7, 2018 - The Supreme Court seven-judge-bench headed by Chief Justice Nalin Perera reserved judgement in the FR petitions filed by several political parties and individuals challenging the Gazette notification issued by the President to dissolve Parliament.
On December 13, 2018 - The Supreme Court seven-judge-bench headed by Chief Justice Nalin Perera unanimously ruled that the Gazette notification issued by the President to dissolve Parliament prematurely was inconsistent with the Constitution.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court seven-judge-bench comprising Chief Justice Nalin Perera and Justices Buwaneka Aluvihare, Sisira de Abrew, Priyantha Jayawardena, Prasanna Jayawardena, Vijith K. Malalgoda and Murdu Fernando ordered to quash and render null and void the concerned proclamation published in the Gazette notification dated November 9.
Supreme Court also observed that fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 12(1) of the Constitution have been infringed by the respondents.
Delivering the Judgement in a jam-packed courtroom, the Chief Justice announced that the Supreme Court decided to overrule the Preliminary Objections raised by Attorney General’s claims that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to hear these petitions. While agreeing with the decision taken by the Chief Justice and five other judges regarding these 10 FR petitions, Justice Sisira de Abrew delivered a separate judgement explaining different reasons to justify his stance.
Justice Sisira de Abrew ruled that in terms of Article 70 (1) of the Constitution, the President cannot dissolve Parliament until the expiration of the four years and six months of Parliament unless a resolution is passed by Parliament with the two-thirds majority of the Parliament.
Add new comment