No constitutional provision to revoke presidential proclamation: ASG

• President’s decision to dissolve was not something taken suddenly
• He had not violated the FR of any citizen or of any petitioner

By Yoshitha Perera 

There are no constitutional provisions to revoke the proclamation issued by the President on March 2 on the dissolution of Parliament, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Indika Demuni de Silva, who appeared for the Attorney General informed the Supreme Court yesterday.  

She raised this preliminary objections in reference to the seven fundamental rights petitions challenging the dissolution of Parliament and the date of election.  ASG de Silva said the petitioners had failed to satisfy Court on how to revoke the presidential proclamation issued on March 2. 

“The President’s decision to dissolve Parliament has not been taken suddenly. It is a part of the   matters raised by him during the presidential election campaign and when he issued this proclamation there was no such threat to the country and that at that time there were no obstacles to holding of the general election,” she said.   
The petitions have been taken up for hearing for the sixth consecutive day, before a Supreme Court Bench of five judges comprising Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya as Chairman and Justices Buwaneka Aluvihare, Sisira de Abrew, Priyantha Jayawardene and Vijith Malalgoda.   

ASG de Silva informed Court that the President had properly and lawfully exercised his decision in terms of Article 33 (2) (c) read with Article 71 of the Constitution.   

“He had not violated the fundamental rights of any petitioner or of any citizen of the country when he dissolved Parliament,” she said. 

 
During the proceedings, ASG de Silva handed over a confidential document prepared by the State Intelligence Services on the statistics and the situation of COVID-19 in the country. However, the report had been read by the counsel for the petitioners.   

She said the current laws in the country were sufficient to handle the coronavirus pandemic and it was up to the President to decide whether there was an emergency situation in the country and added that the petitioners should have in the first instance challenged the postponment of the general election by the Election Commission (EC) but they failed to do so.   

“The EC postponed the election in an irregular manner and that was what had affected the franchise of the people,” ASG de Silva said. 

• The President’s decision to dissolve Parliament has not been taken  suddenly. It is a part of the   matters raised by him during the  presidential election campaign and when he issued this proclamation  there was no such threat to the country and that at that time there were  no obstacles to holding of the general election
• ASG de Silva informed Court that the President had properly and lawfully exercised his decision in terms of Article 33 (2) (c) read with Article 71 of the Constitution