One clause in Anti-Corruption (Amendment) Bill requires referendu: SC
By Saman Indrajith Speaker Dr Jagath Wickramarate yesterday informed Parliament that the Supreme Court had determined that several provisions of the Anti-Corruption Amendment Bill could be passed by a simple majority, while key clauses required a special majority and one provision required approval at a referendum. The Speaker said the Court’s determination on the Bill, […]
The Supreme Court has ruled that several provisions within the Anti-Corruption Amendment Bill should be approved through a special majority in Parliament, as well as a referendum. The court's determination, which comes after the bill was challenged under Article 121(1) of the Constitution, states that Clauses 3, 4, 6(0) and 6(5) can pass by a simple majority.
However, Clauses 6 and 7 require a special majority due to their inconsistency with Articles 12(1) and 14(1)(a) of the Constitution. Furthermore, the Court has found Clause 7's present form to be at odds with Article 12(1), thus directing that the intended repeal of Section 81 be withdrawn. Clause 11(1), which aims to introduce Section 88(1)(f), and Clause 11(2) after committee stage amendments, are also deemed constitutional and can be passed by a simple majority.
The most significant finding, however, is regarding Clause 17, which is inconsistent with Articles 4(c), 3, and 13(2) and can only become law if it receives the special majority required under Article 84(2) and is approved by the people at a referendum under Article 83.
Written by urgent.news from The Island Sri Lanka's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
