Source: https://www.kapruka.com/Sri_Lanka/law/view_legal_document.jsp?type=text&key1=Judgements&key2=SLR&key3=SLR-1996%20Vol.1-P408&key4=Constitution%20Judgements
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 08:33:33+00:00

Document:
(Appellate Procedure) Rules 1990 - Holding office at the pleasure of the executive-Ouster of jurisdiction of Court.
unfettered discretion unrestrained by judicial review.
character) and so cannot be treated as being "laws" within the meaning of section 107(1).
as well as Presidential appointees (under section 108).
Section 107(1) provides that office is held at the pleasure of the President.
or by statute law). The plaintiff held office at pleasure.
clause in section 106(3) was a bar to the plaintiff's action for a declaration.
(under the 1978 Constitution) is an antidote of growing efficacy though not a preventive."
1. Abeywickrema v. Pathirana  1 Sri L.R. 120, 182.
2. Chandrasiri v. A. G.1 Sri L.R. 115.
3. Vallipuram v. Postmaster-General (1948) 50 N.L.R. 214.
4. Santiapillai v. A. G. (1953) 55 N. L. R. 83.
5. De Silva Wijesundera v. P. S. C. (1953) 55 N.L.R.94.
6. Silva v. A.G. (1958) 60 N.L.R. 145.
7. De Zoysa v. P. S. C. (1960) 62 N. L. R. 492 (S. C.).
8. De Zoysa v. P. S. C. (1963) 64 N. L. R. 505 (P. C.).
9. Herat v. Nugawela (1968) 70 N.L.R. 529.
10. A. G. v. Kodeswaran (1967) 70 N. L. R. 121.
11. Pillai v. Fonseka (1968) 71 N.L.R. 202.
12. De Alwis v. De Silva (1967) 71 N.L.R. 108.
13. Bandara v. Premachandra S.C. 213/93 S.C. Minutes of 16.8.93.
14. P. S. U. N. U. v. Jayewickrema  1 Sri L.R. 229, 235-6.
15. Ramupillai v. Perera  1 Sri L.R. 11.
16. Wickremabandu v. Herath  2 Sri L.R. 348.
17. Wickremaratne v. Gunawardena S.C. 5/95 S.C. Minutes of 29.5.95.
18. Ridge v. Baldwin (1964) AC 40,66.
R. K. W. Goonesekera for Plaintiff -Appellant - Appellant.
Mohan Peiris, S.S.C. for the Defendant - Respondent - Respondent.
This appeal involves the interpretation of sections 106 and 107 of the 1972 Constitution.
answered against the Plaintiff on the basis of section 106(5) of the 1972 Constitution.
terminated on the basis that he holds office at the pleasure of the Executive."
effect of the 1972 provisions.
1) Does the "pleasure principle " in section 107(1) confer an unfettered discretion on the Executive?
Ministers, Ministers, etcregarding appointments, transfers and dismissals of "state officers"?
state officers and shall be answerable therefor to the National State Assembly.
transfer, dismissal and disciplinary control of all state officers.
dismissal and disciplinary control of state officers.
transfers, dismissals or disciplinary matters of state officers.
of the President provide otherwise by a law passed by a majority of those present and voting.
(c) heads of the Army, Navy and Air Force and of the Police Force.
President, as well as the Attorney-General and the Heads of the Army, the Navy, the Air Force and the Police Force.
public officers is hereby vested in the Cabinet of Ministers, and all public officers shall hold office at pleasure.
the powers ofappointment, transfer, dismissal and disciplinary control of public officers.
involving ultra vires or mala fide orders. These submissions required us toreconsiderthedecisionsinAbeywickremav.
Mr. Goonesekera referred to a series of decisions prior to1972:Vallipuramv.Postmaster-General,(3)SantiaPillaiv.
A.G.,(4) de Silva Wijesundera v. P. S. C.,(5) Silva v. A.G.,(6) de Zoysa v. P. S. C.,(7)(8) Heratv.Nugawela,(9)A.G.v.
authority for the proposition that rights conferred by administrative rules could likewise derogate from section 57.
that context that the "pleasure principle" and the ouster clause have to be considered.
service must be made the exclusive domain of the Executive without interference from the courts."
I therefore propose to examine the relevant provisions free of the pressures of anypre-conceivednotion,eitherway.
"laws" within the meaning of section 107(1)).
Presidential appointees under Article 54.
not required. That is suggestive of an unfettered discretion, not subject to review.
On the other hand, as already observed, Article 55(1) provides criteria for review, and this points to a limited discretion.
Wickramabandu, which do not appear to have been cited.
prevail over (and thereby amend) the Constitution, unless the Constitution clearly authorises such a result.
Court must conclude that the "pleasure principle" was diluted by the rules.
(Constitutional or legislative) provision. Accordingly, the authority to make rules is subject to the "pleasure principle".
antidote of growing efficacy, though not a preventive.
applicable to the 1972 Constitution. The Plaintiff therefore held office at pleasure.
because that Article expressly preserves a significant area of judicial review, through the fundamental rightsjurisdiction.
force when the special provisions are found in the Constitution itself.
I therefore hold that the ouster clause in section 106(3) was a bar to the Plaintiff's action for a declaration.
important questions of law were involved - without costs.
PEREIRA, J. - I agree.

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