Some sections of Anti Terrorism Bill inconsistent with Constitution: Supreme Court

20 February 2024 10:13 am Views - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}} 9 Bookmark

A A A

By Yohan Perera and Ajith Siriwardana

Parliament, Feb. 20 (Daily Mirror)- The Supreme Court has informed the Speaker of Parliament that some sections of the proposed Anti Terrorism Bill are inconsistent with the Constitution and should be approved with a special majority and through a referendum.

Accordingly, Deputy Speaker Ajith Rajapaksa announced that Sections 3, 40, 53 and 70 are inconsistent with the Constitution and should be approved by a two thirds majority and through a referendum.

However, the court has further stated that it could be passed by a simple majority if the recommended amendments are accommodated.

Comments - 9

Ram Tuesday, 20 February 2024 10:27 AM

Supreme Court clarifications are not very helpful since they have stated that a two thirds majority and through a referendum is needed but how come they could further interpretate that a simple majority in parliament can also sufficient as well. Can this be applicable in other laws are well. If not, why not?

0 0

Mahila Tuesday, 20 February 2024 04:17 PM

Please Read Original SC Ruling Decisions on this matter!? Original decision last month, was, “To Amend 31 sections”, Held were INCONSISTENT with SL Constitution, hence requires 2/3rd Majority in Parliament and a REFERENDUM, to pass in format as Drafted!? SC declared if, circumstances so demand Government may pass by Simple Majority, if 31 Articles are suitably amended as suggested! AG – Government indicated would follow latter process, as Government doesn't ENJOY 2/3rd Majority! However, on day of Reckoning Parliament, and The Minister, (Presume Justice) in his wisdom, Carelessness or Deliberate action (It's Damnable) Placed on order paper and passed it – ‘one sitting’! Not all 31 amendments proposed to SC were included, but selected dozen of their Choice!? Speaker gave assent!? Thereafter, interested parties appealed to SC, as a result, SC gave the present Ruling! Instead of STRICTURES for NON-COMPLIANCE, SC drew ATTENTION - original decision, pointing to Oversight, Lapse, Corrected

0 0

BuffaloaCitizen Tuesday, 20 February 2024 10:28 AM

Question is why our Leaders abuse their positions trying to bring in legislations that are detrimental and against the supreme constitution of the country? Isn't this another form of terrorism happening inside Parliament?

0 0

Jude Tuesday, 20 February 2024 10:45 AM

Don't worry !! We all know with any shape or form you're gonna approve and there will be no changes to ATB.

0 0

Feet on the ground Tuesday, 20 February 2024 10:45 AM

So many ways to skin a cat. At least this government is getting the job done. Many useful pieces of law are getting passed. eg RTI which yahapalanaya did is a great tool. At a time when terrorism was screwing the country the PTA was introduced which helped law enforcement agencies. Now since it is an overkill, time to change. what ever that is not lawful must be amended but having something passed by parliament is much better than a parliament which does nothing at all.

0 0

Jude Tuesday, 20 February 2024 10:51 AM

Let's take some years back "Helping Hambantota" case yeah then CJ cleared the culprit. Now most Lankans don't have any faith in the justice system, period.

0 0

ravin Tuesday, 20 February 2024 12:07 PM

It's a ongoing concern that most of the bills presented to parliament lately are inconsistence with constitution. Don't we have proper experts who know the constitution well or just presented haphazardly drafted bills to hoodwink masses.

0 0

This is reality Tuesday, 20 February 2024 12:39 PM

The Supreme Court can be trusted but not these governing types. Every Bill submitted has been found to have some provisions not consistent with the Constitution. Is it negligence or incompetency or both?

0 0

Buddhist Tuesday, 20 February 2024 05:38 PM

To date, neither Wijedasa Rajapakshe nor the Attorney General has been able to present a bill that the Supreme Court has not identified as violating the Constitution. Even the President, a lawyer, is useless in this matter. Should they still hold their positions?

0 0

Add comment
Comments 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.