Court decides to hear writ petition against Archchuna

The Court should not act contrary to the will of approximately 25,000 voters who elected MP Archchuna as their representative. Accordingly, he urged the Court not to issue formal notices and to dismiss the application

BY Lakmal Sooriyagoda  

The Court of Appeal yesterday issued formal notices on the respondents in the writ application challenging the eligibility of Jaffna District Parliamentarian Dr. Ramanathan Archchuna to serve as a Member of Parliament.   

The matter was taken up for support before a two-judge bench of the Court of Appeal comprising Justice Mayadunne Corea and Justice Mahen Gopallawa. The notices were issued on the respondents, returnable on August 1, 2025. However, the Court refused to grant the interim order sought by the petitioner at the initial stage.  

Counsel Senany Dayaratne, appearing for Parliamentarian Archchuna, made submissions opposing the issuance of formal notices and interim relief against his client.  

Dayaratne submitted that since Dr. Archchuna was interdicted without pay, he does not fall within the definition of a public officer. He also contended that the judgment in Dilan Perera v. Rajitha, which the petitioner primarily relies on, was decided per incuriam (through lack of care). He further argued that the Court should not act contrary to the will of approximately 25,000 voters who elected MP Archchuna as their representative. Accordingly, he urged the Court not to issue formal notices and to dismiss the application.  

In response to these submissions, Counsel for the Petitioner, N.K. Ashokbharan, argued that it is incorrect to claim that MP Archchuna is not a public officer merely because he is interdicted without pay. He pointed out that Archchuna continues to hold a paid office, has neither resigned nor been dismissed from public service, and thus falls under the definition of a public officer—rendering him disqualified. He described the interpretation offered by Counsel for the first respondent as absurd when considered in light of the Constitution and the provisions relating to the powers of the Public Service Commission.  

He further contended that the argument regarding the 25,000 votes lacks merit, citing the example of Ms. Geetha Kumarasinghe, who lost her parliamentary seat despite receiving over 63,000 votes due to disqualification.  

After the conclusion of all the submissions, the Court of Appeal decided to issue formal notices on the respondents.  

Social activist Oshala Herath filed this petition seeking an order in the nature of a Writ of Quo Warranto declaring that Dr. Ramanathan Archchuna is disqualified to be a Member of Parliament.  

The petitioner stated that Dr. Ramanathan Archchuna is a public officer attached to the Ministry of Health and, therefore, as a public officer, he has a contract with the state.  

Counsel N.K.Ashokbharan with Shenal Fernando appeared for the Petitioner. Counsel Senany Dayaratne with Nishadi Wickramasinghe appeared for MP Archchuna. Senior Additional Solicitor General Sumathi Dharmawardhana, PC appeared for the State parties.