The Supreme Court has commenced further hearing of the Fundamental Rights petitions filed challenging the date set by the Elections Commission for the General Election, for the 7th day a short while ago.

The petitions are being heard before the Supreme Court’s five-member judge bench consisting of Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, Justices Buwaneka Aluvihare, Sisira de Abrew, Priyantha Jayawardena, and Vijith Malalgoda.

Seven parties including Attorney at Law Charitha Gunaratne, Center for Policy Alternatives (CPA), and Journalist Victor Ivan, Samagi Jana Balawegaya filed Fundamental Rights petitions challenging the election date set by the Elections Commission.

The Attorney General, on behalf of the President, Chairman of the Election Commission Mahinda Deshapriya, and Members of the Commission N. J. Abeysekara and Ratnajeevan Hoole have been named as respondents of the petition.

With regard to the petitions heard yesterday (27), Additional Solicitor General Indika Devamuni appearing on behalf of the Attorney General concluded her submissions while submissions for the interim petitions filed by Prof. Pandula Adagama were presented by Presidents Counsel Manohara De Silva. 

The PC claimed that the Gazette Notification issued by the President on the 2nd March dissolving the Parliament was legal. Despite the petitioners called for the reconvention of the Parliament, the PC pointed out that there is no constitutional provision that allows for such an action.

Mr. de Silva pointed out that it is surprising that the Elections Commission is requesting for more time for the setting a date for the general election and issuance of preferential numbers,  despite the fact that the Supreme Court had recently stated that the Commission can decide independently on the election date. He charged the Election Commission and petitioners of jointly working to postpone the election.

On behalf of the interim petitioner, President’s Counsel Uditha Igalahewa stated that there is a contradiction in the facts presented in the petitions.
The President’s Counsel, pointing out that when the petitions sought the cancellation of the Gazette Notification of dissolution of Parliament and the order for recall of Parliament, questioned how the Parliament could be reconvened if the relevant gazette was canceled.

The President’s Counsel further stressed that a Parliament which is dissolved by the President cannot be recalled except in the specific cases set out in the Constitution.