3 petitions against 19A filed in SC
Three petitioners filed petitions challenging the 19th Amendment to the Constitution Bill yesterday (25) in the Supreme Court (SC).
Attorney-at-Law Gomin Kavinda Dayasiri, Western Provincial Councillor, Udaya Prabath Gammanpila and L.P.I. Perera of Gangodawila, Nugegoda are the three petitioners who filed petitions under terms of Article 121 of the Constitution.
Attorney-at-Law Gomin Kavinda Dayasiri, Western Provincial Councillor, Udaya Prabath Gammanpila and L.P.I. Perera of Gangodawila, Nugegoda are the three petitioners who filed petitions under terms of Article 121 of the Constitution.
Ceylontoday, 2015-03-26 02:00:00
Read 12 Times
3 petitions against 19A filed in SC
By Stanley Samarasinghe
Three petitioners filed petitions challenging the 19th Amendment to the Constitution Bill yesterday (25) in the Supreme Court (SC).
Attorney-at-Law Gomin Kavinda Dayasiri, Western Provincial Councillor, Udaya Prabath Gammanpila and L.P.I. Perera of Gangodawila, Nugegoda are the three petitioners who filed petitions under terms of Article 121 of the Constitution.
Attorney-at-Law Gomin Kavinda Dayasiri, Western Provincial Councillor, Udaya Prabath Gammanpila and L.P.I. Perera of Gangodawila, Nugegoda are the three petitioners who filed petitions under terms of Article 121 of the Constitution.
In his petition, Provincial Councillor, Gammanpila requested the Court to determine clauses 1-54 of the Bill and declare that it requires the support of two-thirds of Parliament and must be approved by the people in a referendum. Attorney-at-Law Dayasiri, in his petition requested the Court to declare that Article 14A(1) and (2) and the powers of the President sought to be amended and repealed or replaced requires the votes of 2/3rd of Parliament and the approval of the people in a referendum.
Article 33 sought to be amended or repealed or replaced requires a vote of 2/3rd of Parliament and the approval of the people in a referendum and to make a declaration that Article 70(1) be amended or repealed or replaced requires votes of 2/3rd of Parliament cast in favour and the approval of the people in a referendum. L.P. Ivan Perera in his petition requested the Court to determine that Clause 2 of the Bill is inconsistent with Article 10 of the Constitution and cannot be enacted into law unless by the people in a referendum in addition to a two-thirds vote in favour of Parliament.
No comments:
Post a Comment