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 ...
representation, which gives pre-eminence to the party. It is only if the party polls enough votes that its candidates
may stand a chance of election.
The UNP Constitution imposes obligations on all members one of which is the undertaking to accept the
principles, policy and programme and code of conduct of the party. The other important obligation is not to engage in
political or other activities likely to conflict with the said undertaking. There is a further obligation not to bring
the party into disrepute. Then there are special obligations on M.P.s some of which are -
1. the duty to be bound by the directions of the Leader or the Deputy Leader regarding matters in Parliament ;
2. the duty to harmonize with the policy and code of conduct of the party ;
3. the duty to vote in Parliament according to the Mandate of the Parliamentary Party conveyed through the party
whip.
I can see no illegality in these arrangements for group action. How can any government or opposition
function without disruption if the conduct of M.P.s as a group cannot be regulated including in the matter of voting in
the House and each M.P. is free to do whatever he pleases? How can the party fulfil its mandate given to it by the
electors? Can an individual M.P. who has been elected on the party vote and policy be heard to say " from today I
am a free man, the party and the group are secondary and are subordinate to me "? Can Parliamentary business be
transacted without the party having some assurance as to how the M.P.s are going to vote? I see no evil in
reasonable restrictions on the conduct of M.P.s in Parliament based on group action or in the obligation to harmonize
with party policy or in the Whip system all of which have the effect of ensuring the smooth functioning of Parliament
itself and peace, order and good government.
In this country the electors elect a government for six years after an election which is often bitterly fought
and in recent times in conditions of turmoil and death. It is then the duty of both the opposition and the government,
owed to the people, to ensure as far as possible, stable government. The Constitution has frozen party composition
in the House for the duration of Parliament and made provision for vacation of seats where a Member of Parliament
ceases by resignation, expulsion or otherwise to be a member of the recognized political party or independent group
on whose nomination paper his name appeared at the time of his election to Parliament. It is not our function to
examine the wisdom of these provisions the object of which, I believe, is to achieve stability of government. Group
action, party discipline and the Whip system are
complimentary. If we declare these arrangements to be invalid we would be making the Constitution
unworkable and as Sir John Donaldson MR observed in Waltham Forest case (Supra) " We should......... be
criticising the system operating in Parliament itself."
This does not mean that a M.P. may never complain of interference with his rights by unlawful action or
direction. As a matter of principle occasion for such complaint can arise ; but what those occasions are and how a
M.P. may assert his rights need not be gone into here because each case will depend on its own facts and
circumstances. The rights of a M.P. are not incompatible with his obligations to the party the object of which is to
ensure cohesion and conjoint action ; in that sense he may be described as a cog in the party machine ; but he is not
a life-less cog liable to be subjected to unlawful or capricious orders or directions without remedy.
Mr. de Silva strenuously contends that paragraph 5 of the Working Committee resolution contains a distinct
ground of expulsion based on the mere signing of the resolution for the removal of the President. I cannot agree.
That paragraph should be read in the light of paragraphs 7 and 11. Paragraph 5 states that the signing of the
resolution together with several members of the opposition in Parliament is an act of betrayal of the parry
membership and the confidence placed by the people in the party and its leadership at successive elections.
Paragraph 6 relates to the vote of confidence in the President. Paragraph 7 reads -
" And Whereas the aforesaid eight members have signed the said Notice of Resolution without any prior
intimation to the party or raising or discussing the same within the Party Organizations or the Government
Parliamentary Group."
Paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 relate to the campaign against the Executive Presidential System. Paragraph 11 is as
follows :
47 of 56 4/20/2011 1:18 PM
228
229