By The Pulseline News Desk
Ruling National People’s Power (NPP) Parliamentarian Lakshman Nipuna Arachchi has moved to intervene in the Supreme Court proceedings challenging the proposed 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, urging the Court to dismiss the petition filed by two office-bearers of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL).
BASL Treasurer T.M.S. Pasindu Silva and Assistant Secretary Lakitha Isiwara Wakishta Arachchi had earlier petitioned the Supreme Court, arguing that the proposed constitutional changes could undermine judicial independence and therefore require approval by the people at a referendum.
In his intervenient petition, Nipuna Arachchi has asked the Supreme Court to permit him to participate in the proceedings through counsel and oppose the relief sought by the BASL petitioners.
The NPP MP has rejected several key arguments advanced in the BASL petition, describing them as baseless, legally untenable and without foundation.
Among the issues he has challenged is the claim that there had been inadequate consultation with stakeholders before the proposed amendment was introduced.
He has also disputed arguments concerning the Constitutional Council, the alleged conflict of interest arising from the Supreme Court considering the constitutionality of legislation affecting judges, and the request for the matter to be heard by a Full Court.
The proposed 22nd Amendment seeks to increase the retirement age of Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judges, provide for the retirement date of the Chief Justice and increase the number of judges serving on the Court of Appeal.
Nipuna Arachchi has maintained that the Bill is not inconsistent with the Preamble to the Constitution, Articles 3 and 4(c), or Articles 75 and 76. He has further argued that the proposed provisions do not violate the Rule of Law, judicial independence or the principle of constitutionalism.
The NPP parliamentarian has also taken the position that the amendment falls within the legislative powers of Parliament and does not require approval at a referendum under Article 83 of the Constitution.
He has therefore asked the Supreme Court to determine that the Bill, either as a whole or through its individual provisions, is not inconsistent with Article 3 and does not require a referendum.
The petition has further sought the dismissal of the BASL challenge, rejection of the reliefs requested by the original petitioners, costs and any other relief the Court considers appropriate.
The intervention adds another legal dimension to the ongoing constitutional dispute over the proposed changes to the retirement age and composition of the superior courts, with the Supreme Court now being called upon to consider competing arguments over whether the legislation can be enacted solely through Parliament or must also receive approval from the electorate.
Leave a comment