Attorney Aruna Laksiri Unawatuna B.Sc(Col), PGDC(Col) (Coordinator)
Dr. Thilaka Padma Subasinghe Memorial Legal Education Programme

http://neethiyalk.blogspot.com/2026/08/is-it-violation-of-constitution-for.html?m=1

1. According to Article 83(ආ) of the Constitution, a referendum is required to amend Articles 30(2) and 62(2) (the term of the President and the duration of Parliament).In 2015, during the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, the Supreme Court interpreted Article 83(b) of the English version of the Constitution and amended Articles 30(2) and 62(2) without holding a referendum. This was certified by the Speaker and made into law. The Supreme Court has also ruled that Articles 30(2) and 62(2) of the Constitution have been amended (according to the English version).

2. The issue that now arises is that the requirement under Article 83(ආ) to hold a referendum to amend Articles 30(2) and 62(2) (the term of the President and the duration of Parliament) still remains, creating an absurd situation.
3. Amending Articles 30(2) and 62(2) without a referendum creates a contradiction between these articles and Article 83(ආ) of the Constitution.

4. Contradictory provisions cannot co-exist within the same Constitution, and it is the duty of constitutional experts to examine whether such provisions exist elsewhere in the world.

5. Allowing a constitutional amendment to increase the tenure of judges without addressing or rectifying these contradictions means the Attorney General is failing to fulfill his duty to protect the Constitution. Consequently, he could face allegations of violating the Constitution.

Attorney Aruna Laksiri Unawatuna B.Sc(Col), PGDC(Col) (Coordinator)
Dr. Thilaka Padma Subasinghe Memorial Legal Education Programme
Telephone: 0712063394

* Translation of the article ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථාවේ එකිනෙකට පටහැනි ව්‍යවස්ථා තිබියදී විනිසුරු කාලය වැඩිකරන ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෝධනයකට නීතිපති අනුමැතිය ලබා දීම ආණ්ඩුක්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථාව උල්ලංඝණයක්ද?