|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
| Wednesday, 18 August 2004 |
 |
|
 |
News | |
| News Business Features Editorial Security Politics World Letters Sports Obituaries
|
by Bharatha Malawaraarachchi and Ranil Wijayapala Speaker W. J. M. Lokubandara yesterday told Parliament that the Supreme Court has recommended that certain clauses of the Prohibition of Forcible Conversion of Religion Bill violate certain articles of the Constitution and that the Bill in its present form has to be passed by not less than a two thirds majority and approved by the people at a referendum. The Speaker was referring to the determination of the Supreme Court on the above mentioned Bill. The full text of the Speaker's announcement: "I have received the determination of the Supreme Court in respect of the Bill titled "Prohibition of Forcible Conversion of Religion', which has been challenged in the Supreme Court in terms of Article 121 (1) of the Constitution. The Court has determined that in terms of the Article 123 of the Constitution that Section 2 of the Bill does not offend Article 9, 10, 12 (1) 12 (2) and 14 (1) (e) of the Constitution subject to the restrictions recommended to the definition of allurement in Clause 8 (9). "The Supreme Court has also determined that the provisions in Clauses 3 (a) 3 (b), 4 (a), 4 (b) 5 and 6 of the Bill are inconsistent with Articles 10, 12 (4), 76 (1), 10, 12 (1), 76 (1) of the Constitution respectively. The Court has further recommended that Clauses 3 and 4 (b) of the Bill violate Article 10 of the Constitution. The Bill in its present form has to be passed by not less that two thirds of the whole number of Members (including those not present) and approved by the people at a referendum in terms of Article 83 (a) of the Constitution. The Court further specified that if Clauses 3 and 4 (b) are deleted the Bill will not be inconsistent with Article 10 of the Constitution. In view of the findings of the Clause 4 (a) of the Bill in violation of Article 12 (1) of the constitution the Court has recommended that the words "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary to any provision in code of Criminal Procedure Act" in Clause 4 (a) of the Bill be deleted. And that item 11 of the schedule referred to in, the proviso to Clause 4 (a) of the bill be deleted. In the event of Clause 4 (a) being amended, any institution of proceedings - under the Clause 5, - of the Bill relating to the offences mentioned therein be instituted in accordance with the provisions of Section 136 of the Criminal Procedure Code Act and subject to the written sanction of the Attorney-General. The Supreme Court has further recommended to interpolate the words "for the purpose of converting a person from one religion to another" after the word "temptation" in sub paragraph (a) of Clause 8, and the words "for the purpose of converting a person from one religion to another" at the end of sub paragraph (c) of Clause 8, and the word of "wilful" after the word of "includes" in sub paragraph (d) of Clause 8 and the interpolation the words "for the purpose of converting a person from one religion to another" at the end of the sub paragraph 8 (d). I order that the determination of the Supreme Court be printed in the official report of today's proceedings. |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
Produced by Lake House |
