Sumanthiran’s petition challenging Speaker certifying Online Safety Bill dismissed by SC

29 February 2024 12:36 pm Views - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}} 13 Bookmark

A A A

Colombo, Feb. 29 (Daily Mirror)- A Fundamental Rights petition filed by Parliamentarian M.A. Sumanthiran challenging the Speaker's act of certifying the Online Safety Bill has been dismissed by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court three-judge-bench comprising Justices Priyantha Jayawardena, Shiran Goonaratne and Achala Wengappuli refused to grant leave to proceed with the petition taking into account the preliminary objections raised by Attorney General Sanjay Rajaratnam.

The Attorney General raised objections citing that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to intervene into the legislative matters following the Speaker's certification to a bill passed by Parliament.

In his petition, Sumanthiran is seeking a declaration that the Speaker’s certification of the Online Safety Act is not valid in law. The petitioner is further seeking a declaration that the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 12(1) and 14 of the Constitution to the petitioner and the citizens have been infringed by the Attorney General by failing to advise the Speaker and Parliament that the committee stage amendments did not make the Online Safety Bill compliant with the Supreme Court’s determination.

The petitioner has cited Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardana and the Attorney General as respondents.

Comments - 13

kapila Thursday, 29 February 2024 12:46 PM

basically the Speaker can do anything unconstitutional and no one can question it What a country and what kind of law. This is truly a miracle of Asia

0 0

Wickremasinghe Thursday, 29 February 2024 12:50 PM

Here we go. God bless Sri Lanka.

0 0

Don Thursday, 29 February 2024 12:53 PM

If Supreme Court is toothless to correct the unlawful act of the speaker, please file a case in the international court on behalf of people of the country. At least international court will teach a lesson to the unlawful behaviour of the government to protect people’s human rights.

0 0

Raven Thursday, 29 February 2024 02:25 PM

If the verdict was the other way around everything will be rosy for you eh? Are you above even the supreme court to have judged a case before it's heard?

0 0

joshua Thursday, 29 February 2024 01:05 PM

Its true the SC has no jurisdiction. But there should be jurisdiction when bunch of theieves pass an act

0 0

Man Thursday, 29 February 2024 01:18 PM

Why not try to quote and refer the clauses of the safety act and convicting those clauses breaching the constitution and fundamental rights of every citizen as per the Supreme Court determination and implementation of such clauses are null and void? Because, AG's point is in the constitution and that what matters.

0 0

Bandu Thursday, 29 February 2024 02:31 PM

OMG please help, only You can.

0 0

Ruwan Thursday, 29 February 2024 02:32 PM

Thank you Supreme court. This was like what happened in U.S.A. recently where Facebook had to apologise for their folly. This country can now go ahead without fearing keyboard heroes and tongue waggers.

0 0

Gayantha Hemachandra Thursday, 29 February 2024 02:44 PM

Before passing a bill as an act of parliament, its constitutionality and legality can be challenged in the Supreme Court. Once the Supreme Court sends its determination including its findings about the bill , the parliament along with the speaker are bound to follow the determination of the court and pass the bill accordingly. Without following top court’s determination, the parliament passed this so called piece of legislation and subsequently the speaker signed it as an act of parliament. Passing and certifying this so called act by the parliament and the speaker can not be considered as a legislative matter of the parliament because the parliament along with the speaker violated the Constitutional Provisions outlined in making laws. The speaker has intentionally committed contempt of court . Without accepting so called Attorney General or Laundry General’s absurd objections , they could have bravely decided the case in fulfilling their sacred duty as “Guardians of Constitution”

0 0

Truth Thursday, 29 February 2024 02:53 PM

There are bigger issues in the country that are affecting the fundamental rights of the citizens at the moment and a majority in the country is not interested over the issues in online safety bill

0 0

Bandu Thursday, 29 February 2024 05:12 PM

Have you heard of the Niemoller Confession. First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. Wait till the govt descends on you. Good luck.

0 0

Jabi Thursday, 29 February 2024 05:53 PM

Not RealTime of the rulers, people and a country gone crazy.

0 0

Buddhist Thursday, 29 February 2024 06:15 PM

We have a Supreme Court which has become a slave to the politicians. There is no rule of law in SL.

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.