States of Emergency - Centre for Policy Alternatives

executive in favour of the latter, and in the process, set the
precedent for the institutionalisation of emergency powers in the
UK. During its currency, this piece of legislation (aimed at the
defence of the realm in a time of grave conLlict), was used to
regulate such matters as dog shows, supply of cocaine to actresses
and the opening hours of pubs. The DORA lapsed in 1921 along
with the declaration of termination of the war. Before that,
however, its essence was enacted into law by the Emergency
Powers Act of 1920, which in scheme, form, content and textual
formulations, was the archetype for many similar statutes in the
British Empire and Commonwealth, including the Sri Lankan
Public Security Ordinance (PSO). The PSO as amended, validated
by the republican constitutions, continues to be the statutory
source of emergency power in Sri Lanka. A comprehensive study
of emergency regulations in force in 1992 by the University of
Colombo, found that they were used for regulating such matters as
the adoption of children, edible salt and driving licenses. 183
Another feature of how the exception becomes normalised is the
role of the judiciary. We have seen how judges are generally
reluctant to second‐guess the executive during an emergency, the
time ironically that their role as guarantor of fundamental rights
assumes the greatest signiLicance. Apart from this, is the often
imperceptible occurrence of transubstantiation, whereby due to
the constant state of emergency, provisions of ordinary law and
even the constitution come to be continuously interpreted in the
light of emergency rule. A very good example of this is that a large
segment of the fundamental rights jurisprudence of the Sri Lankan
Supreme Court concerns violations of fundamental rights through
the exercise of emergency powers. Especially in the case of
183
Centre for the Study of Human Rights & the Nadesan Centre (1993)
Review
of
Emergency
Regulations
3
(Colombo: University of Colombo)
108