SC interpretation inconclusive ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” Former CJ Sarath N. Silva Courtesy Sunday Observer

The Supreme Court when making its decision, had not taken any notice of ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-by Standing OrdersƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ in Article 107-3 of the Constitution which reads, ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-Parliament shall by law or by Standing Orders provide for all matters relating to an impeachmentƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚, said former Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva.

He alluded that in 1984 Parliament had decided to act according to Standing Orders and held that no Court could direct Parliament to make laws.

According to the Constitution, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction only to determine whether a gazetted draft law is consistent or not with the provisions of the Constitution.

The former Chief Justice said that enacting laws is vested solely in Parliament which enjoys the peopleƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s legislative power. The people could, however, exercise such powers at a referendum. If we were to enact laws as such Standing Orders would have to be done away with, he said.

The Constitution has stipulated that it is ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-by laws or by Standing OrdersƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ and as such it is for Parliament to decide whether to abolish Standing Orders, if it so desires, he said.

ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-Had due regard been paid to Section 107-3, orders could not have been issued likewise. The discretionary powers of enacting laws are vested in Parliament and the judiciary cannot intervene. The judiciary cannot exceed parliamentary authority. According to Section 125 (1) of the 1978 Constitution, the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction only to interpret the Constitution. It is the exclusive right of Parliament to act according to its Standing Orders, former Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva said.