Sri Lanka's Supreme Court has determined that three provisions of the Chartered Institute of Media Professionals of Sri Lanka Bill are inconsistent with constitutional rights provisions in their present form, unless they are deleted or amended as proposed by the Court.
Speaker Dr. Jagath Wickramaratne announced the Supreme Court determination in Parliament on September 8.
The challenged provisions are:
- Clause 3(i)
- Clause 4(o)
- Clause 5(4)(b)
The Court did not determine that the entire Bill is unconstitutional.
Clause 3(i)
The Supreme Court found Clause 3(i) vague and inconsistent with Articles 12(1) and 14(1)(g) of the Constitution.
In its existing form, it would require the special majority prescribed by Article 84(2).
The Court said the inconsistency would cease if the clause is deleted.
Clause 4(o)
Clause 4(o) was also found inconsistent with Articles 12(1) and 14(1)(g).
It would require the Article 84(2) special majority unless amended in the manner proposed by the Court.
Clause 5(4)(b)
The Court found Clause 5(4)(b) inconsistent with Article 12(1).
The inconsistency would cease if Clause 5 is amended as proposed by the Court.
Remaining provisions
The Supreme Court determined that the remaining provisions of the Bill are not inconsistent with the Constitution.
Parliament may therefore proceed in accordance with the Court's determination, including through the proposed amendments or, where constitutionally applicable, the required special-majority procedure.