Elections Chief, Competent Authority, electronic media and polls: SC rules for a referendum
Friday, 10 April 2015 00:32
-
- {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
The Supreme Court has ruled that the proposal in the 19th Amendment to bestow overarching powers to deal with electronic media requires approval from the public through a referendum.
The Supreme Court said the Election Commission had been vested with untrammelled power and the eligibility and suitability of the members would be of paramount consideration in the public interest. “There does not appear to be a mechanism where an aggrieved citizen could impugn and challenge an appointment of a competent authority that is not fitting. We are therefore of the view that the functions of the competent authority would directly affect and have a bearing on the franchise of the people and the process of selection of the representatives of people which have a direct nexus on the exercise of the sovereignty of the people. Accordingly, we are of the view that the aforesaid Clause violates Article 3 of the Constitution and therefore has to be approved by the people at a referendum as provided in Article 83 of the Constitution,” the court stated.
The original Clause 26 104 B (S)(c)- stated that:
“Where the Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation, the Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation or the Independent Television Network or any other broadcasting or telecasting enterprise owned or controlled by the State or the enterprise of every private broadcasting or telecasting operator, as the case may be, contravenes any guidelines issued by the Commission under sub-paragraph (a) , the Commission may appoint a Competent Authority by name or by office, who shall, with effect from the date of such appointment, take over the management of such Broadcasting Corporation, Rupavahini Corporation or Independent Television Network, or other broadcasting or telecasting enterprise owned or controlled by the State or the enterprise of such private broadcasting or telecasting operator, as the case may be, insofar as such management relates to all political broadcasts or any other broadcast, which in the opinion of the Commission impinge on the election, until the conclusion of the election, and the Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation, the Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation and the Independent Television Network or other broadcasting or telecasting enterprise owned or controlled by the State or the enterprise of such private broadcasting or telecasting operator, shall not, during such period, discharge any function connected with, or relating to, such management which is taken over by the Competent Authority.”
The Supreme Court said that while making submissions on the mentioned provision, Faiz Musthapa, P.C. and Sanjeewa Jayawardene, PC submitted that as to what a “political broadcast”, or the factor which impinges on an election were not matters which should be left to the formation of a subjective, arbitrary and collaterally motivated opinion which promotes an arbitrary exercise.
Counsel further submitted that the Election Commission should not be vested with such far-reaching powers to take over a private broadcasting/telecasting station on the purported basis of various subjective factors.
The State taking over its own media institutions may be permitted, but if it is extended to private media institutions, providing balanced and multi perspective news and views the same will be most prejudicial. Furthermore, this provision does not set out the qualification and/or the post that a person holds in order to be appointed as a competent authority and this too will severely infringe upon the rights of the citizens and also the rights and interests of the media institutions who may well be supervised and effectually managed by persons not eligible or suitable for same.
