Source: https://www.kapruka.com/Sri_Lanka/law/view_legal_document.jsp?type=text&key1=Judgements&key2=SLR&key3=SLR-1994%20Vol.2-P90&key4=Constitution%20Judgements
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 08:14:10+00:00

Document:
S.C. REFERENCE NOS. 2/93 & 3/93.
C.A. APPLICATION NOS. 376/93 & 377/93.
S.C. REFERENCE NOS. 4/93 & 5/93.
C.A. APPLICATION NOS. 378/93 & 379/93.
JULY 07, 08 AND 09, 1993.
infringement of a fundamental right - Validity of such reference.
the DUNF won 9 seats. In the Southern Province the UNP won 27 seats, the PEP won 22 seats and the DUNF won 6 seats.
Markar, Governor of the Southern Province) were required to appoint Chief Ministers under Article 154F oftheConstitution.
The Governors of the two Provinces were facedwithrivalclaimsforappointmentasChiefMinister-betweenG.M.
Southern Province (M. A. Bakeer Markar) appointed the UNP contenders as Chief Ministers of the two Provinces.
up for hearing together in the Court of Appeal.
not subject to review by Court?
and any act done in consequence thereof is not justiciable, and is essentially a matter political in nature?
reason of the provisions of Article 154F (2) of the Constitution?
the Constitution whereby the Governor's decision can be tested in the Council?
fundamental right without hearing submission on behalf of the Chief Minister.
failing, Such as not allowing a person affected to put forward his case, the act may be condemned as unlawful.
judged by reference to the purposes for which they were so entrusted.
discretion is not given for any other purpose personal or political.
evidence, or on irrelevant considerations or without evidence.
and there is no selfimposed rule or judicial restraint which inhibits judicial review.
a Chief Minister under Article 154F (4).
dutyjudicial review is not excluded.
(v)This does not raise any question relating to the interpretationof theConstitution.
1. Chandrasekeram v. A.G. - SC References 1-3/92, SC Minutes of 29.6.92.
2. Baker v. Carr (1962) 369 US 186.
4. Bhut Nath v. State of West Bengal AIR 1974 SC 806, 811.
5. Rooke's Case (1598) 5 Co. Rep. 99 b.
6. Roberts v. Hopwood  AC 578, 613.
7. United States v. Wunderlich  342 US 98, 101.
8. Hirdaramani v. Ratnavale  75 NLR 67, 82.
9. Liversidge v. Anderson (1942) A. C. 206.
10. R. v. LR.C. ex. p. Rossminister Ltd. [ 1980] A.C. 952.
11. Secretary of State for Education v. Tameside  A.C. 1014, 1047.
12. Adegbenro v. Akintola  3 All E.R. 544, 551.
13. Dinesh Chandra v. Charan Singh AIR 1980 Delhi 114, 117.
14. Madan Murari v. Charan Singh AIR 1980 Calcutta 95.
15. Dissanayake v. Kaleel SC (Special) Nos. 4-11/91 S.C. Minutes of 3.12.91.
16. State of Rajasthan v. Union of India AIR 1977 SC 1361, 1412 - 13.
17. Nixon v. Harndon (1926) 273 US 536.
18. Brown v. Board of Education (1953) 347 US 483.
19. Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for Services  1 AC 374, 418.
21. R. v. Governor of Wormwood Scrubbs Prison  2 K. B. 305.
22. The King v. Halliday [ 1917] A.C. 160, 170.
23. Jogendra Nath v. State ofAssam AIR 1982 Gauhati 25, 34.
Reference under Article 125 and 126(3) of the Constitution (see Judgment of Court of Appeal reported in2SriL.R.
Elmo Perera, N. M. Musafer and M. N.
Perera, Ronald Perera and A. BritoMuthunayagam for the 2nd Respondent.
Constitution required to exercise his functions or any of them in his discretion.
be on the President's directions.
inquired into in any Court.
political party, the Governor shall appoint the leader of that political party in the Council as Chief Minister.
Council constituted for that Province, the other Ministers.
(6) The Board of Ministers shall be collectively responsible and answerable to the Provincial Council."
PEP Councillor, and the 2nd Respondent, a UNP Councillor.
manifesting their support for the Petitioners.
Ministers of the two Provinces.
Chief Minister, and Mandamus to compel the Governor to appoint the Petitioner as Chief Minister.
not subject to review by Court ?
proviso) and any act done in consequence thereof is not justiciable, and is essentially a matter political in nature?
by reason of the provisions of Article 154F (2) of the Constitution?
by the Constitution whereby the Governor's decision can be tested in the Council?
or imminent infringement of a fundamental right.
"question" of the infringement of a fundamental right.
respect of the "matter", which this Court could not determineupon a proper reference under Article126(3)the"matter"
under Article 126 (3), and that only the reference under Article 125 requires our consideration.
prima facie evidence of an infringement of a fundamental right without hearing submissions on behalf of the Chief Ministers.
the questions with some degree of elaboration.
justiciablein any event, that doctrine was evolved inthecontextofthestrictseparationofpowersintheU.S.
indicating that our law does not recognise any such exclusion or restriction.
issues (Clive Lewis, Judicial Remedies in Public Law, p. 123).
primary function of an independent Judiciary .
liberty (as by refusing him planning permission), must be able to justify its action as authorised by law . . .
Law, 5th ed., p. 22).
to abuse of power and the rule of law would cease to operate.
judicial control . . ." (Wade, 5th ed., p. 37).
be drawn. For this purpose everything depends upon the true intent and meaning of the empowering Act.
which possesses powers solely in order that it may use them for the public good.
absolute. Plainly this can have no application in public law." (pp. 353-354).
between equity and colourable glosses and pretences, and not to do according to their wills and private affections ..
which reason directs. He must act reasonably."
reference to the purposes for which they were so entrusted.
the Province"that might have approached the realm of "pure judgment" (Secretary of State for Educationv.Tameside.(11)).
supportbut it is not "pure judgment", for that assessment of support cannot be made in total disregard ofexistingfacts.
judicial review than "opinion" of the kind considered in Hirdaramani v. Ratnavale (8).
Mr. Seneviratne cited several Indian cases in support of his contention that the Governor's decision waspurelysubjective.
questioned on that ground that he should have acted on advice, because Article 163(2) entrusted that decision to him alone.
Minister, is not necessarily the same as that between Governor andChiefMinister,especiallyinanon-federalsystem.
organs of government, but are reviewable by the Judicary if it is a subordinate organ.
embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question."
districts, although that was a matter having a long (U.S.) history of political involvement.
line is to be drawn"and it is the Judiciary which is entrusted with theresponsibilityofdeterminingthosequestions.
constitutional limitations. That is the essence of the rule of law . . ."
amenable to the judicial process."
matter of the removal of a Prime Minister by the Governor as beyond review, and scrutinized the propriety of thatremoval.
- Dinesh Chandra v. Charan Singh (13).
In U.N.R. Rao v. Smt. Indira Gandhi (20), the construction of Article 75(3) came up directlyforconsideration.
but straightaway went to decide the issues ..."
nature of writs of Quo Warranto, Certiorari, and Mandamus.
Of course, the British have no written constitution, but the argument remains."
concerned with a subordinate executive body.
on behalf of the Petitioners that the Governor mightdissolvetheCouncilinstead.IaminclinedtoagreewithMr.
confidence in the Chief Minister, the Petitioner wouldbeappointedtosucceedhim litigationmaybecomenecessary.
sought to review in the pending applications.
Article 154F (2) applies only to the Governor's decision as to whetherheshouldactonadviceorinhisdiscretion.
being a preclusive clause it must be given a narrower rather than a wider interpretation.
specifically referred to in the opening clause of Article 154F (2).
restraint which inhibits judicial review.
have acted in his discretion"that provision does not apply to the appointment of a Chief Minister under Article 154F(4).
5. This does not raise any question relating to the interpretation of the Constitution.
Case sent back to the Court of Appeal with determination of the Supreme Court.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.