SC dismisses second petition against Presidential election

The Supreme Court has dismissed the second fundamental rights petition filed recently that sought to prevent the holding of the Presidential election this year. 

The petition, filed by Attorney-at-Law Aruna Laksiri, argued that the 19th Amendment was not enacted properly and that conducting a Presidential election without a referendum violated the Constitution. The Court ordered the petitioner to pay a court fee of Rs. 500,000.

The ruling was made by a bench comprising Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, Justices Arjuna Obeysekera, and Priyantha Fernando yesterday affirming the formal adoption of the 19th Constitutional Amendment without the need for a referendum, in line with prior rulings from 2015.

In his petition, Laksiri claimed that the 19th Amendment amended Article 70 of the Constitution, which deprives the President of the power to dissolve an elected Parliament after one year. He contended that the amendment has not been approved by a referendum, despite a Supreme Court ruling indicating it should be. 

The respondents named in the petition included the Election Commission, its members, the Secretary General of Parliament, and the Attorney General.  The Court’s decision means that the Presidential election can proceed, while the petitioner’s request for a referendum on the 19th Amendment was rejected. The petitioner is required to pay the specified court costs by 31 July 2024.

On 8 July the Apex Court dismissed another petition seeking to postpone the upcoming Presidential election. The petitioner, entrepreneur C.D. Lenawa had argued that the Court needed to determine the President’s term length before the election could proceed.

The five-judge bench, led by Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, rejected the petition on several grounds. Firstly, they noted the lack of new evidence compared to a similar petition filed in 2019. Additionally, the Attorney General argued that the petitioner’s fundamental rights were not violated as the constitution clearly states a five-year presidential term.

During the proceedings, the Attorney General emphasised before the Supreme Court that the Presidential term is constitutionally defined as five years.

The case was heard by a five-judge bench presided over by Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, alongside Justices Vijith Malalgoda, Murdhu Fernando, P. Padman Surasena, and S. Thurairajah.