Sri Lankan Parliament Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena announced the Supreme Court’s determination on the Telecommunications (Amendment) Bill.
According to the announcement, the Supreme Court stated that certain clauses in the Bill are inconsistent with the Constitution and some clauses require a special majority for passage.
The Supreme Court’s determination, delivered by the Speaker in Parliament, is as follows:
“I wish to inform Parliament that I have received the determination of the Supreme Court regarding the Sri Lanka Telecommunications Amendment Bill, which was challenged in the Supreme Court under Article 121(1) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has summarized the constitutionality of the Bill as follows:
- Clause 8: Proposed Section 9A(2) is inconsistent with Article 12(1) of the Constitution. The inconsistency shall cease if the word ‘may’ is replaced with ‘shall’, as specified by the Supreme Court.
- Clause 9: This clause is inconsistent with Article 12(1) and can only be passed with a special majority as required under Paragraph 2 of Article 84. The inconsistency shall cease if the clause is amended as directed by the Supreme Court.
- Clause 12: Proposed Section 17(10) is inconsistent with Article 12(1) and requires a special majority under Article 84(2). The inconsistency shall cease if the clause is amended according to the Supreme Court’s determination.
- Clause 13: Proposed Sections 17A(1) and 17B are inconsistent with Article 12(1) and require a special majority under Article 84(2). The inconsistency shall cease if the clause is amended as directed by the Supreme Court.
- Clause 18(5): Proposed Sections 22(3)A and 22(3)B are inconsistent with Articles 14(1)A, 14(1)G, and 12(1) and require a special majority under Article 84(2). The inconsistency shall cease if amended as specified by the Supreme Court.
- Clause 18(7): Proposed Section 22(7) is inconsistent with Articles 12(1) and 14(1)A. The inconsistency shall cease if the clause is amended as directed by the Supreme Court.
- Clause 20: Proposed Section 22(A)D is irrational and inconsistent with Article 12(1) and requires a special majority under Article 84(2).
- Clause 33: Proposed Section 59A is inconsistent with Article 12(1) and requires a special majority under Article 84(2). The inconsistency shall cease if the proposed 59A is deleted.
- Clause 35: Proposed Sections 68(1)A, B, and 68(1)A, C are inconsistent with Article 12(1) and require a special majority under Article 84(2). The inconsistency shall cease if Clause 35 is amended by deleting the Proposed Sections 68(1)A, B, and 61A, C as specified by the Supreme Court.
The other provisions in the Bill are not inconsistent with any provisions of the Constitution. I order that the determination of the Supreme Court be printed in the official report of today’s proceedings of the House.”
