Supreme Court fixed for support on May 21 for granting of leave to proceed with the fundamental rights petition challenging the Excise Notification, imposing a restriction on females, allegedly discriminating them.
The bench comprised Justices Eva Wanasundera, Nalin Perera and L.T.B. Dehideniya.
Women’s rights groups and activists are up in arms lamenting that the impugned notification is an infringement of basic human rights and dignity of women.
Petitioners nitpick that the impugned notification of the Minister of Finance and Mass Media Mangala Samaraweera is to re-impose and revive most disastrously, the purported restriction/prohibition imposed on the engagement and employment of women in the manufacture, collection, bottling, sale or transport of liquor.
They also nag that the restriction/prohibition that no liquor shall be sold or given to a woman within the premises of a tavern, thereby infringing the fundamental rights of women to equal protection and equality guaranteed under Article 12 of the Constitution as well as the right to engage in a lawful occupation, trade or business of their choice.
They state that consequent to the Cabinet decision, the Minister purportedly issued the said impugned Excise Notification.
They indict that the impugned notification amounts to ex-facie and de jure (legally) gender-based discrimination, infringing the rights of adult women.
They bemoan the Minister by the said notification superseded a draconian and archaic excise notification that blatantly demeaned and discriminated against women.
Women & Media Collective, Centre for Women’s Research, Prof. Camena Guneratne and Sulakshana de Mel (Directresses of Women’s Education & Research Centre) and 11 others filed the petition.
They cited Minister Mangala Samaraweera, Treasury Secretary Dr R..H.S. Samaratunga, Commissioner General of Excise Mrs K.H.A. Meegasmulle, Attorney General and others as Respondents.
President’s Counsel Sanjeeva Jayawardane appeared for the Petitioners.(S.S. Selvanayagam)
das Sunday, 8 April 2018 23:28
"They also nag"???. Poor choice of words, giving a negative light to the whole matter against the petitioners.
Reply : 2 24
Nihal Amarasekera Monday, 9 April 2018 04:49
Finally Government's ORIGINAL decision will stay if the case is won. So who wins finally, if so, the Government.
Reply : 1 8
Jayamini Monday, 9 April 2018 09:00
"Nag?" Seriously? Is this how a professional article is written? When women speak up for their right to equality it's considered 'Nagging'? Kudos to ladies of Women's Education
Reply : 1 22
lkboy Monday, 9 April 2018 09:37
I feel sad that minister Mangala's name is dragged into this. He originally wanted to revoke the "ban".
Reply : 1 12
Samayang Monday, 9 April 2018 11:14
gor heaven's sakeWomen's groups are ...........lamenting that theThey also nag that the They bemoan the MinisterLack of professionalism, poor journalism or patriarchal attitudes?
Reply : 1 15
Ranee Ratnayeke Monday, 9 April 2018 16:21
Nag ?? Yes. We must 'nag' and continue shouting till we are heard. Right to equality - is a Fundamental right of every Sri Lankan and it says so in our Constitution - Article 12 (2)
Reply : 0 5
Add commentComments will be edited (grammar, spelling and slang) and authorized at the discretion of Daily Mirror online. The website also has the right not to publish selected comments.