|
|
 |
 |
 |
| Thursday, 18 December 2003 |
 |
|
 |
Politics | |
| News Business Features Editorial Security Politics World Letters Sports Obituaries
| Increasing number of Bills challenged in SC by Pramod de Silva and Bharatha Malawaraarachchi Speaker Joseph Michael Perera yesterday drew the Parliament's attention to the increasing number of Bills being challenged in the Supreme Court. "There are so many Bills challenged in the Supreme Court which has determined that those Bills are inconsistent with the Constitution. The Court also determines that those Bills need either a two thirds majority or be approved at a referendum", the Speaker said. The Speaker made these remarks referring to the Supreme Court's termination on the 'Land Ownership Bill' challenged in the Courts in terms of Article 121(1) of the Constitution. He said the Government seeks the Attorney General's advise and clearance before presenting any Bill. "Therefore, the Attorney General's advise is very important and at the same time, we have to obey the Supreme Court's determination," the Speaker said. "Hence, we have to be very concerned of this issue as a number of Bills have been challenged in the Supreme Courts", he added. Leader of the House and Minister W.J.M. Lokubandara said the Attorney General's Department is working under very difficult circumstances and amidst severe difficulties. The Speaker responding said he was not blaming anyone but only raising an important issue for concern. Chief Government whip and Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe said any citizen has the right to petition before the Supreme Courts on any Bill. "The Government is bound to respect the determination of the Supreme Court", he said. The Speaker's announcement on the Supreme Court's determination on the Bill titled 'Land Ownership': "I wish to announce to the Parliament in terms of the Standing Order No. 50(2)(c), the Determination of the Supreme Court in respect of the Bill titled 'Land Ownership' - which has been challenged in the Supreme Court in terms of Article 121(1) of the Constitution. The court has determined that the Bill is inconsistent with the Constitution and that if it is to be enacted in its present form it would need a majority vote of 2/3 of the whole number of members in Parliament (including those not present) and the approval of the people at a referendum as required in terms of Article 83 of the Constitution". |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
Produced by Lake House |
