States of Emergency - Centre for Policy Alternatives

public order…[sic] in terms of Article 15 (7). In a contest
regarding the validity of a regulation, the
 President’s
evaluation
of
the
situation
that
the
regulation
appeared
to
him
 to
 be
 necessary
or
 expedient
 is
 not
 sufKicient
 to
 lend
validity
to
the
regulation.
The regulation to be valid must satisfy the objective test
that it is in fact in the interest of national security, public
order, etc. It
 is
 competent
 to
 the
 court
 to
 question
 the
necessity
of
the
Emergency
Regulation
and
whether
there
is
a
 proximate
 or
 rational
 nexus
 between
 the
 restriction
imposed
 on
 a
 citizen’s
 fundamental
 rights
 by
 the
Emergency
Regulation
and
the
object
sought
to
be
achieved
by
the
regulation…” 318
Thus in Karunathilaka
v.
Dissanayake
No.1
(1991), 319 the Supreme
Court employed the test of rational nexus to hold that a purported
postponement of a Provincial Council election under emergency
regulations (seeking thereby to circumvent the bar on
postponement under ordinary law) was invalid. In
Wickramabandu v. Herath 1990), 320 the Court held that the
invocation of the grounds of restriction of Article 13 under Article
15 (7) was subject to a judicially determined standard of
reasonableness. This encompasses the test established in Joseph
Perera.
Perhaps one of the most extensive judicial expositions of the
law ,relating to how the restrictions of fundamental rights
318
Ibid, p.216‐217; emphasis added.
319
Karunathilaka
and
Another
v.
Dayananda
Dissanayake,
Commissioner
of
Elections
and
Others
(No.1) (1999) 1 SLR 157
320
Wickremabandu
v.
Herath
and
Others (1990) 2 SLR 348
197