Ramananda Sengupta By

Express News Service

NEW DELHI: In a move that could bring the long-festering political crisis in Sri Lanka to a close, a seven-judge bench of the country’s Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously ruled that President Maithripala Sirisena’s decision to dissolve Parliament on November 9 was unconstitutional and illegal, and had no force or effect in law.

In a courtroom packed with lawyers, MPs, politicians and journalists, the judges further upheld that the President’s arbitrary action had violated the fundamental right of ‘equal protection of the law’ of the Petitioners, as well as the rights of citizens and parliamentarians, and ordered that the Gazette proclamation be quashed and pronounced null and void.

In late October, President Sirisena had dismissed Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe days after the latter returned from a state visit to India, and replaced him with former president Mahinda Rajapaksa, a pro-China strongman.

When that decision was contested, Sirisena had dissolved parliament.

Like India, the US, the EU and China urged a return to democratic principles, both Rajapaksa and Wickremesinghe had refused to step down, leading to a situation which brought governance in the island nation to a standstill.

Thursday’s ruling comes a day after parliament-in session following an earlier temporary Supreme Court Ruling passed a vote of confidence in Wickremesinghe as PM, whose party and its allies have a simple majority. In a tweet, Wickremesinghe called on Sirisena to “promptly respect the judgment of the courts”.

Though Rajapaksa remained silent, his son and MP Namal Rajapaksa tweeted: “We respect the decision of (Sri Lanka’s) Supreme Court, despite the fact that we have reservations regarding its interpretation.” If Sirisena rejects the Supreme Court’s decision, he could face impeachment proceedings.</s>Image copyright AFP Image caption The Supreme Court was packed with MPs, lawyers and journalists awaiting the judgment

Sri Lanka's top court has ruled that the president's dissolution of parliament last month was unconstitutional, as a political crisis continues to grip the nation.

President Maithripala Sirisena dismissed his prime minister and replaced him with former leader Mahinda Rajapaksa in late October.

When that decision was contested, he dissolved parliament.

The ruling could see sacked PM Ranil Wickremesinghe return to office.

The legislature - which has been sitting after a temporary ruling from the Supreme Court - has already passed two no-confidence motions against Mr Rajapaksa.

The controversial but popular leader was president at the end of Sri Lanka's nearly three decade-old civil war in 2009 and is accused of presiding over vast human rights abuses, which he denies.

On Wednesday, the parliament passed a vote of confidence in Ranil Wickremesinghe as prime minister.

His party and its allies have a simple majority in parliament - and have argued from the beginning that President Sirisena's actions, including calling a snap election nearly two years ahead of schedule, were unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court on Thursday said the president could not dissolve parliament until it was four-and-a-half years through its five-year term.

Correspondents say that if the president does not accept the top court's decision, it could lead to impeachment proceedings. However this would require the support of a two-thirds majority in parliament and a special inquiry by the Supreme Court.

In a tweet, Mr Wickremesinghe called on President Sirisena to "promptly respect the judgment of the courts".

He is yet to comment. Namal Rajapaksa, an MP and son of Mahinda Rajapaksa, tweeted: "We respect the decision of [Sri Lanka's] Supreme Court, despite the fact that we have reservations regarding its interpretation."

Image copyright AFP Image caption Parliament voted for the reinstatement of Mr Wickremesinghe on Wednesday

The political crisis, which began on 26 October when President Sirisena shocked the nation by suddenly sacking his PM, is being closely watched by the US, India, China and the European Union.

The government has been in paralysis since an appeals court ruling last week that restrained Mr Rajapaksa from acting as prime minister, in a separate case brought by 122 MPs.

The crisis - which has provoked brawls in parliament and sparked large protests - has hurt tourism, which makes up about 5% of the country's economy.</s>Sri Lanka’s Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the dissolution of Parliament by Maithripala Sirisena was “unconstitutional”, in a major setback to the President whose controversial decisions have plunged the island nation into a constitutional crisis.

A seven-member apex court bench said that the President cannot dissolve Parliament till Parliament completes a 4 1/2 year term, the Colombo Gazette reported.

Sri Lanka is going through a major political crisis since October 26 when President Sirisena, in a controversial move, sacked Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and installed former strongman Mahinda Rajapaksa in his place.

He also dissolved Parliament and called for a snap election on January 5.

Sirisena sacked the 225-member Parliament when it appeared that Rajapaksa would not be able to muster the support of 113 MPs. Wickremesinghe, on the other hand, commands a majority.

As many as 13 petitions were filed against Sirisena’s November 9 order sacking the Parliament, almost 20 months before its term was to end.

The Supreme Court on November 13 had issued an interim order ruling Sirisena’s gazette notification as temporarily illegal and halted the preparations for snap polls.</s>The Sri Lankan Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that President Maithripala Sirisena’s decision to dissolve Parliament on October 26 was illegal, AFP reported. A seven-member bench unanimously gave the verdict, saying that the president’s decision was unconstitutional.

Security was heightened around the Supreme Court and a special task force deployed before the Supreme Court’s order, PTI reported.

The island nation has been in a state of political turmoil since President Maithripala Sirisena ousted Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and replaced him with Mahinda Rajapaksa, a former president. He suspended Parliament to prevent a vote, then lifted the suspension, but dissolved it again in November and called for snap elections on January 5. Rajapaksa’s government lost two trust motions in Parliament.

Around 13 petitions were filed against the president’s order. The petitioners included several political parties, organisations and activists.

On November 13, the Supreme Court had issued an interim order ruling Sirisena’s gazette notification as temporarily illegal and had halted the preparations for snap polls, Sri Lankan website Ada Derana reported.</s>A seven-member apex court bench said that the President cannot dissolve Parliament till it completes its a four-and-half-year term

Sri Lanka's Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously ruled that the dissolution of Parliament by Maithripala Sirisena was "unconstitutional", in a major setback to the embattled President, whose controversial decisions plunged the island nation into an unprecedented constitutional crisis.

A seven-member apex court bench said that the President cannot dissolve Parliament till it completes its a four-and-half-year term. The decision has laid to rest one of the many controversial moves which had complicated the constitutional crisis emanating from President Sirisena's decision on October 26 to sack the incumbent prime minister, Ranil Wickremesinghe, and install former president Mahinda Rajapaksa in his place. He also dissolved the 225-member Parliament and called for a snap election on January 5.

Catch up on all the latest Crime, National, International and Hatke news here. Also download the new mid-day Android and iOS apps to get latest updates

This story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed, agencies. Mid-day accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability, trustworthiness, reliability and data of the text. Mid-day management/mid-day.com reserves the sole right to alter, delete or remove (without notice) the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever</s>COLOMBO, Sri Lanka — The Sri Lankan Supreme Court’s chief administrator says a seven-member bench will deliver a much-anticipated verdict on whether it was legal for President Maithripala Sirisena to dissolve Parliament and call for fresh elections, moves that created a political crisis in the Indian Ocean island nation.

The bench concluded hearings last week and reserved judgment for Thursday. The court stayed the Parliament’s dissolution in November.

A verdict endorsing Sirisena’s moves could quickly end a political stalemate, precipitated by the president’s decision in October to sack the then-prime minister, Ranil Wickremesinghe, and suspend Parliament.

Such an order would pave the way for the election of a new Parliament.

However, if the court rules Sirisena’s actions were unconstitutional, the president will be under pressure to reappoint Wickremesinghe as prime minister.</s>Colombo: Sri Lanka’s Supreme Court Thursday unanimously ruled that the dissolution of Parliament by Maithripala Sirisena was “unconstitutional”, in a major setback to the President whose controversial decisions plunged the island nation into an unprecedented constitutional crisis. A seven-member apex court bench said that the President cannot dissolve Parliament till it completes a 4 1/2 year term.

 Authorities beefed up the security around the Supreme Court and deployed the elite special task force in the area. The decision has laid to rest one of the many controversial moves which had complicated the political and constitutional crisis emanating from President Sirisena’s decision on October 26 to sack the incumbent prime minister, Ranil Wickremesinghe, and install former president Mahinda Rajapaksa in his place.

 Later, he also dissolved the 225-member Parliament and called for a snap election on January 5. Sirisena sacked the Parliament when it appeared that Rajapaksa would not be able to muster the support of 113 MPs to gain a simple majority.

 Wickremesinghe on the other hand commands a majority in the House. On Wednesday, Wickremesinghe proved his majority in Parliament, with 117 out of 225 lawmakers in Parliament voting to pass a confidence motion in his leadership. Rajapaksa has so far failed to prove his majority in Parliament.

 Sirisena has said that he has always taken decisions in the best interest of the country and the people. He had also said that he will honour the court’s decision.

 As many as 13 petitions were filed against Sirisena’s November 9 order sacking the Parliament, almost 20 months before its term was to end.

 The apex court’s decision has come as a serious blow to Sirisena after he had failed in his attempt to see Rajapaksa gaining majority in the assembly to oust Wickremesinghe. This would mean no snap parliamentary election could be called by Sirisena at least until February 2020.

 The Supreme Court on November 13 had issued an interim order ruling Sirisena’s gazette notification as temporarily illegal and halted the preparations for snap polls. The bench – extended to 7 from the original 3 when they issued the interim order – had marathon sessions over four days last week before reserving the order to this week. The current parliament could still call for a snap poll with a resolution passed with two thirds majority.

 Wickremesinghe had held his ground without leaving his official residence as he claimed his dismissal was illegal. He said the 19th amendment to the Constitution had made Sirisena powerless to remove a sitting prime minister. (PTI)</s>Sri Lanka was on the edge, ahead of the crucial Supreme Court ruling on President Maithripala Sirisena’s controversial sacking of Parliament and call for a snap election that pushed the country into unprecedented political turmoil. As many as 13 petitions were filed against the President’s November 9 order sacking the 225-member Parliament, almost 20 months before its term was to end, and setting the election date for January 5.

The petitions have been filed by political parties including United National Party (UNP), Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), Tamil Progressive Alliance (TPA) and the All Ceylon People’s Congress.Organisations and activists such as the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA), Attorney Aruna Laksiri and also a member of Elections Commission Prof. S. R. H. Hoole have also filed petitions.The Supreme Court on November 13 had issued an interim order ruling Sirisena’s gazette notification as temporarily illegal and halted the preparations for snap polls. The hearing in the case was concluded last week as the court reserved its judgment.

The judge bench consisting of Supreme Court Justices consisting of Chief Justice Nalin Perera, Priyantha Jayawardena, Prasanna Jayawardena, Sisira de Abrew, Vijith Malalgoda, Buwaneka Aluwihare and Murdu Fernando commenced hearing the petitions on the 4th of December.On the final day of hearing of the petitions, President’s Counsel S. Kanageswaran, representing the leader of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) R. Sampanthan, presented submissions on behalf of the petitioners.

He stated that the impunity conferred to the President of the country, under Article 35 of the Constitution, in civil or criminal proceedings has been inhibited to a certain extent by the 19th Amendment to the Constitution.Pointing out that the 19th Amendment to the Constitution has made provisions to file lawsuits under Fundamental Rights against the executive and administrative actions of the President, he said that the official activities of the President can be queried before the court.

Hence, the dissolution of the Parliament is also an official activity carried out by the President, it can be challenged before the court under the Fundamental Rights provisions, President’s Counsel Kanageswaran had further said.The rest of the attorneys appearing on behalf of the petitioners also presented submissions in this regard.The petitioners had presented submissions before the court in response to the submissions of the intermediate petitioners.

Presenting submissions before the Supreme Court on the 5th of December, the Attorney General had stated that in accordance with Article 38 (02) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court does not have the legal authority to hear these fundamental rights petitions filed against the parliamentary dissolution.

The Supreme Court last Friday (Dec. 7) concluded the hearing of the petitions filed challenging the Gazette notification dissolving the Parliament after four consecutive days of court hearings.Meanwhile, the interim order issued by the court, suspending the Gazette notification on the dissolution of Parliament, was extended until the verdict is delivered in the case.

President Sirisena has said he will accept the Supreme Court’s ruling on the petitions filed against his gazette notification dissolving Parliament.“I look forward to the constitutional interpretation of the Supreme Court. Whatever it may be, I will take future political decisions accordingly, to the best interest of our motherland, not to the benefit of any person, group or party,” the president tweeted on Sunday.

His remarks were apparently aimed at Wickremesinghe’s United National Party (UNP) with whom Sirisena was running the national unity government since 2015.The partnership ended on October 26 when Sirisena fired Wickremesinghe, triggering the political standoff.Since ousting Wickremesinghe, Sirisena has highlighted the “shortcomings” of the ex-premier in a bid to justify his sacking and dissuade his reinstatement.

Speaker Karu Jayasuriya has officially conveyed that the House does not recognise Rajapaksa as the legal prime minister until he proves his majority.</s>Colombo: Sri Lanka’s Supreme Court on Thursday ruled President Maithripala Sirisena’s decision to dissolve parliament ahead of its term as illegal.

On November 9, Sirisena dissolved parliament and called a general election for January 5 days after sacking Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and naming opposition leader Mahinda Rajapaksa to the post.

However, the apex court Judge Sisira de Abrew rejected that decision and said, “President can’t dissolve parliament before four-and-half years.”

The court verdict means parliament elections will be held as scheduled after February 2020 and raises the possibility of Wickremesinghe reinstated as prime minister since his coalition enjoys a majority in parliament.</s>The Supreme Court today ruled that President Maithripala Sirisena’s decision to dissolve Parliament was unconstitutional and illegal.

Chief Justice Nalin Perera goes on to state that the president cannot dissolve parliament at his own will or before the lapse of 4.5 years, if President wants to dissolve Parliament before 4.5 years, there must be a resolution passed by two-thirds majority in Parliament.

The justices have now left the courtroom.
A seven-bench Supreme Court unanimously rules that President Sirisena's dissolution of Parliament on 9 November 2018 was unconstitutional.