Gamini Dissanayake (Petitio... - Human Rights Commission of Sri ...

Gamini Dissanayake (Petitioner In Sc 4/91) V. Kaleel, M.C.M. And Others file:///C:/Documents and Settings/kapilan/My Documents/Google Talk ...
Any member of Parliament was entitled to sign the notice of resolution in the exercise of his independent judgment
and discretion. Signing a notice intended to be presented, and in fact presented to Parliament in respect of a matter
within its province is a proceeding in Parliament. Freedom of speech (and thought, conscience and expression)
clearly embraces the people's right to know, the wide dissemination of information and opinions, the public discussion
of all matters of public concern and criticism, however strongly worded, and even if foolish and without moderation,
of public measures and government action, all this, of course, by peaceful means and without incitement to violence.
However this does not entitle the petitioners to relief because they are also charged with the failure to raise these
matters internally.
Per Fernando, J.
" The rules of a Political Party are not a mere matter of contract but the basis of the exercise of the freedom of
association recognised by Article 14 (1) (c).
One of the conditions on which party members agreed to exercise this fundamental right was by mutually accepting
reciprocal obligations placing limitations on the exercise of the freedom of speech by each other, in the interests of
their association ".
The ground of expulsion is the signing of the resolution without first raising it within the party organisation or the
government Parliamentary Group.
As the petitioner in S.C. (Special) 5/91 and the petitioner in S.C. (Special) 8/91 lied and deceived the cabinet and
have offered no explanation in their affidavit and none is found in the documents their misconduct was grave and
expulsion was intrinsically a proper penalty. Expulsion of these two petitioners was valid.
The allegations against the District Judge of Colombo should be expunged.
Held further (Fernando, J. dissenting).
The conduct of the petitioners including senior Parliamentarians in disclosing in public the serious allegations
contained in the resolution cannot be construed as bona fide, and gives credence to the allegation that they used the
resolution as a cover to cause insult and injury to the character, integrity and ability of the leader of the party in his
capacity as President of the country. Such contumacious conduct constitutes indiscipline in the party unrelated to the
exercise of constitutional rights.
The petitioner's rights were not materially affected by the order of expulsion. All the issues here relate to legal
matters arising upon admitted facts. The subsequent hearing in the Supreme Court is in substance the right to an
antecedent hearing. No injustice was caused to the petitioners by their being deprived of an opportunity to give an
explanation before the Working Committee. The expulsions had not yet taken effect and their validity is to be decided
by the Court. There has been no violation of the rules of natural justice.
The allegations of bias and mala fides have not been substantiated.
The expulsions of the petitioners in cases S.C. (Special) 4/91, 6/91, 7/91, 9/91, 10/91 and 11/91 were also valid and
justified.
Cases referred to
1. Wickremabahu v. Herath SC 27/1988 - SC Minutes of 6.4.1990.
2. Shanmugam v. Commissioner for Registration of I and P Residents (1962) 64 NLR 29, 33.
3. Young v. Fife Regional Council (1986) Scots LT 331.
4. General Medical Council v. U. K Dental Board [1936] Ch 41.
5. Bromley London Borough Council v. Greater London Council [1982] 1 All ER 129, 131-2, 165, 166, 182.
6. Secretary of State for Education and Science v. Tameside Metropolitan Borough [1976] 3 All ER 66.
7. R v. Waltham Forest LBC ex parte Bashen (1987) 3 ALL ER 671, 674, 676, tin.
3 of 56 4/20/2011 1:18 PM
139