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 ...
105. R v. Hendon Rural District Council [1933] 2 KB 696.
106. R v. Altrincham Justices Ex p. Pennington [1975] 2 All ER 78, 82.
107. Roebuck v. National Union of Mineworkers [1973] 1 LGR 676.
108. Young v. Fife Regional Council (1986) S.L.T. 331, 334. (same as No. 3)
109. Blackpool Corporation v. Locker [1948] 1 All ER 85.
110. Ruth v. Clerk (1890) 25 QBD 391.
111. Yapa Abeywardena v. Harsha Abeywardena SC 51/87 (SPL) SC Minutes of 18.01.1988.
112. Rati Lal v. State of Bombay AIR 1954 SC 388.
113. Calder v. Bull (1798) 3 US 386, 399.
APPLICATION under and in terms of Article 99 (13) (a) of the Constitution , challenging expulsion from the United
National Party.
H. L. De Silva, PC, M. L. M. Ameen, PC, Neville De J. Seneviratne, R. K. W. Goonesekera, E D.
Wickramanayake, Ranjan Gooneratne, S. L. Gunesekera, Gomin Dayasiri, Neil Dias, Ranjith Fernando, Mahendra
Amarasekera, Dhamsiri Fonseka, T. M. S. Nanayakkara, S. T. Jayanaga, Nigel Hatch, Upul Jayasooriya, Mangala
Ranaraia, Nalin Dissanayake, Ian Fernando and H. B. Maddumabanda for Petitioners in all eight applications.
K. N. Choksy, P.C., S.C. Crosette - Thambiah, Daya Pelpola, S. J. Mohideen, D. H. N. Jayamaha, Lalith W.
Jayawickrema, A. L. Brito - Mutunayagam, Ronald Perera and Lakshman Ranasinghe for 1 to 4 respondents in all
eight applications.
No appearance for the 5th respondent.
December 03, 1991.
FERNANDO, J.
142
Cur. adv. vult.
Eight Members of Parliament applied to this Court, by petitions in terms of Article 99 (13) (a) of the Constitution,
challenging their expulsion from the United National Party (" the Party "), a recognized political party. The questions
of fact and law involved are, except in one respect, identical, and the parties agreed that all eight petitions be heard
and determined together. It was further agreed that the facts were not seriously in dispute, and that any contested
question of fact should be determined on the basis of the several affidavits filed, without the need for oral evidence
or cross examination of deponents.
1. THE FACTS
In late August 1991 a sudden crisis occurred in the Party, when it became known that notice had been given of a
resolution in terms of Article 38 (2) (a) of the Constitution by more than one-half of the whole number of Members of
Parliament. The petitioners have produced a copy of this notice ; it is undated, does not contain the names,
signatures or initials of the signatories, and is not authenticated in any way ; the Respondents have not denied that it
is indeed a copy of the notice, and so I accept it as a correct copy. The requisite number of signatures could not
have been obtained unless Party Members also were included. The eight Petitioners admittedly signed this notice ;
when, we have not been told. It is said that forty Party Members signed, but subsequently (after 28.8.91) some
claimed that they had not signed, or had signed through mistake or misrepresentation, and others withdrew or
revoked their signatures. However, it is unnecessary for me to decide any of these intriguing questions as to the
number of signatories, the validity of the signatures and of the notice itself, and the entertainment of the notice by the
Speaker. It is clear that this notice was the result of a secret campaign for some time prior to August 1991 by
Opposition Members of Parliament, the Petitioners, and some other Government Members. It is also admitted that
although the notice refers to serious criticisms of the President's conduct from the inception of his period of office, at
no stage had the Petitioners expressed any criticism or dissent whatsoever, either publicly or within the inner councils
7 of 56 4/20/2011 1:18 PM
143