Source: https://www.kapruka.com/Sri_Lanka/law/view_legal_document.jsp?type=text&key1=Judgements&key2=SLR&key3=SLR-1993%20Vol.2-P135&key4=Constitution%20Judgements
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 08:58:03+00:00

Document:
No. 10/91, No. 11/91 were heard together and disposed of in one judgment).
OCTOBER 31 AND NOVEMBER 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12 AND 13, 1991.
Deceiving the Cabinet - Breach of rules of natural justice - Audi alteram partem - Bias - Mala fides.
8/91 were Ministers of Cabinet rank in the UNP government shortly before their expulsion.
United National Party if held to be valid will result in their being deprived of their seats in Parliament.
signatures and accordingly could not be proceeded with.
including the petitioners in SC 5/91 and SC 8/91 unanimously expressed their support for the President by ashowofhands.
However, it later became known that they supported the notice and they resigned from the Cabinet on 30 August 1991.
On 30 August 1991 the President prorogued Parliament until 24 September 1991.
including Gam Udawa Celebrations and establishing a one man dictatorship.
claimed that 47 members of the UNP had signed the notice of resolution.
and consent and they claimed that they had signed through mistake or because of misrepresentation.
(a) Absence of jurisdiction in the Working Committee.
(b) Inconsistency with the provisions of the Constitution and Statute Law.
(c) Breach of the rules of natural justice particularly the audi alteram partem rule.
(d) Bias and mala fides.
the responsibility and the function in relation to disciplinary matters.
had jurisdiction to take disciplinary action against the petitioners.
enables Parliament to exercise the judicial power of the people in regard to parliamentaryprivilege.
the petitioners to relief because they are also charged with the failure to raise these matters internally.
association recognised by Article 14 (1) (c).
intrinsically a proper penalty. Expulsion of these two petitioners was valid.
The allegations against the District Judge of Colombo should be expunged.
Held further (Fernando, J. dissenting).
arising upon admitted facts. The subsequent hearing in the Supreme Court is in substance the right to an antecedenthearing.
no violation of the rules of natural justice.
The allegations of bias and mala fides have not been substantiated.
1. Wickremabahu v. Herath SC 27/1988 - SC Minutes of 6.4.1990.
2. Shanmugam v. Commissioner for Registration of I and P Residents (1962) 64 NLR 29, 33.
3. Young v. Fife Regional Council (1986) Scots LT 331.
4. General Medical Council v. U. K Dental Board  Ch 41.
5. Bromley London Borough Council v. Greater London Council  1 All ER 129, 131-2, 165, 166, 182.
6. Secretary of State for Education and Science v. Tameside Metropolitan Borough  3 All ER 66.
7. R v. Waltham Forest LBC ex parte Bashen (1987) 3 ALL ER 671, 674, 676, tin.
8. R v. Greenwich LBC ex P. Lovelace & Fay [199113 All ER 511, 515, 517, 523, 525.
9. Joseph Perera v. A. G. SC 107-109/86, SC Minutes of 25.5.87.
10. New York Times v. US (1971) 403 US 713.
11. Dissanayake v. Sri Jayawardenepura University  2 Sri LR 254.
12. Shaughnessy v. US (1953) 345, US 206, 224.
13. McNabb v. US (1943) 318 US 332, 347.
14. Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works (1863) 14 CB (N.S. 180, 194).
15. Mersey Docks (etc) Trustees v. Gibbs (1866) LR 1 HL 93, 110.
16. Wood v. Woad (1874) LR 9 Ex. 190, 196.
17. Byme v. Kinematograph Renters Society Ltd.  1 WLR 762, 784.
18. Franklin v. Minister of Town and Country Planning  AC 87.
19. Nakkuda Ali v. Jayaratne (1950) 51 NLR 457.
20. R v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner ex parte Parker  1 WLR 1150.
21. Ridge v. Baldwin  AC 40, 130.
22. Hall v. Manchester Corp. (1915) 84 LJ Ch 732.
24. Urban Housing Co. Ltd. v. Oxford City Council  Ch 70, 85.
25. Board of Education v. Rice  AC 179, 182.
26. R v. Gaming Board for G. B.  2 QB 417, 430.
27. Schmidt v. Home Secretary  1 All ER 904, 909.
28. A. G. v. Ryan  AC 718, 727.
29. Cooper v. Wilson  2 KB 309, 344.
30. Kanda v. Federation of Malaya  AC 322, 337.
31. Chief Constable (North Wales) v. Evans  3 All ER 141, 143, 146, 147, 154, 155.
32. Vdyodaya University v. Silva (1964) 66 NLR 505.
33. Durayappah v. Fernando (1966) 69 NLR 265.
34. Jeffs v. N. Z. Dairy Products (etc) Board  3 All ER 863, 870.
35. Bamard v. National Dock Labour Board  2 QB 18. 23,  1 All ER 1113, 1118.
36. Vine v. National Dock Labour Board (1956) 3 All ER 939, 943.
37. Lawlor v. Union of Post Office Workers  1 All ER 353, 362.
38. Bum v. National Amalgamated Labourers Union  2 Ch 364.
39. Abbott v. Sullivan  1 KB 189, 198.
40. Lee v. Showmen's Guild  2 QB 329, 342.
41. Taylor v. National Union of Seamen  1 WLR 532.
42. Annamunthodo v. Oilfield Workers Trade Union (1961) 3 All ER 621, 624 - 625.
43. Stevenson v. United Road Transport Union  3 All ER 29, 38.
44. lnnes v. Wylie (1844) 1 Car & Kir. 257, 263.
45. Andrews v. Mitchell  AC 78, 81.
46. Fisher v. Keane (1878) 11 Ch. D 353, 362.
47. Labouchere v. Earl of Wharancliffe (1879) 13 Ch. D. 346, 352.
49. Gray v. Allison (1909) 25 TLR 531, 533.
50. R v. Saddler's Company ex parte Dinsdale (1863) 10 HLC 404, 423, 439, 456, 461.
51. Johnson v. Jockey Club of South Africa (1910) WLD 136.
52. D' Arcy v. Adamson (1913) 29 TLR 367, 368.
53. Graham v. Sinclair (1918) 25 CLR 102, 107.
55. Abbott v. Sullivan  1 KB 189, 198.
56. Edward v. Sogat  Ch 591, 606.
57. R v. Archbishop of Canterbury (1859) 1 E. & E. 545.
58. Capel v. Child (1832) 2 C & J 558.
59. Bonaker v. Evans (1850) 16 QB 162.
60. R v. North Ex p. Oakey  1 KB 491.
61. Bentley's Case R v. University of Cambridge (1723) 1 Str. 557.
62. Re Pergamon Press Ltd.  Ch 388, 399.
63. University of Ceylon v. Fernando (1960) 61 NLR 505.
64. R v. Aston University Senate ex p. Roffey  2 QB 538.
65. Glynn v. Keele University  1 WLR 487,  2 All ER 89.
66. Herring v. Templeman (1973] 3 All ER 569, 587.
67. Selvarajan v. Race Relations Board  All ER 12, 19.
68. McInnes v. Onslow - Fane  1 WLR 1520, 1528.
69. Bates v Lord Hailsham  1 WLR 1373, 1378.
70. Pearlberg v. Varty  1 WLR 534, 547.
71. Ex p. Parker  1 WLR 1150.
72. Buckoke v. Greater London Council  Ch 655.
73. R v. Hull Prison Visitors ex p. St Germain  QB 425.
74. General Medical Council v. Spackman  AC 627, 644.
75. White v. Redfern [1879) 5 QBD 15.
76. R v. Davey  2 QB 301.
77. John v. Rees  Ch. 345, 402 2 WLR 1294, 1332, 1333, 1335.
78. Heatley v. Tasmanian Racing (etc) Commission (1977) 137 CLR 487.
79. R v. Secretary of State for the Environment ex p. Brent LBC  3 All ER 321, 354.
80. A. G. of Hong Kong v Ng Yuen Shiu  2 All ER 346, 350.
81. O' Reilly v. Mackman  3 All ER 1124, 1126, 1127.
82. Civil Service Unions Case  AC 374.
83. Cinnamond v. British Airports Authority  2 All ER 368, 374.
84. Malloch v. Aberdeen corporation  2 All ER 1278, 1283, 1294, 1297, 1298.
85. Maradana Mosque v. Mahmud (1966) 68 NLR 217, 224.
86. Gaiman v. National Association for Mental Health  2 All ER 362, 374, 376, 381.
87. Secretary of State for Trade v. Hoffman - La Roche  3 All ER 945.
88. Ward v. Bradford Corporation  115 SJ 606 70 LG.R 27.
89. Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal (1852) 3 HLC 759.
90. R v. Sussex Justices  1 KB 256.
91. Hannam v. Bradford City Council  2 All ER 690, 694, 700.
93. R v. Essex Justices  2 KB 475.
94. R v. Camborne Justices  2 All ER 850.
95. R v. Nailsworth Justices  1 WLR 1046.
97. Simon v. Commissioner of National Housing (1972) 75 NLR 471.
98. Law v. Chartered Institute of Patent Agents  2 Ch. 276, 290.
99. Metropolitan Properties v. Lannon  3 All ER 304, 310, 314.
100. R v. Leicestershire Fire Authority Ex. p. Thompson (1978) 77 LGR 373, 379.
104. Frome United Breweries v. Bath Justices  AC 586.
105. R v. Hendon Rural District Council  2 KB 696.
106. R v. Altrincham Justices Ex p. Pennington  2 All ER 78, 82.
107. Roebuck v. National Union of Mineworkers  1 LGR 676.
109. Blackpool Corporation v. Locker  1 All ER 85.
110. Ruth v. Clerk (1890) 25 QBD 391.
111. Yapa Abeywardena v. Harsha Abeywardena SC 51/87 (SPL) SC Minutes of 18.01.1988.
112. Rati Lal v. State of Bombay AIR 1954 SC 388.
113. Calder v. Bull (1798) 3 US 386, 399.
Gooneratne, S. L. Gunesekera, Gomin Dayasiri, Neil Dias, Ranjith Fernando, Mahendra Amarasekera, Dhamsiri Fonseka, T. M. S.
Nanayakkara, S. T. Jayanaga, Nigel Hatch, Upul Jayasooriya, Mangala Ranaraia, Nalin Dissanayake, Ian Fernando and H. B.
Maddumabanda for Petitioners in all eight applications.
K. N. Choksy, P.C., S.C. Crosette - Thambiah, Daya Pelpola, S. J. Mohideen, D. H. N. Jayamaha, Lalith W. Jayawickrema, A. L.
Brito - Mutunayagam, Ronald Perera and Lakshman Ranasinghe for 1 to 4 respondents in all eight applications.
No appearance for the 5th respondent.
Speaker's letter was received by the President whilst a Cabinet meeting wasinprogress twoPetitioners(MessrsG.M.
after the cabinet meeting. "
and added 'there is no inconsistency between raising your hand and then offering to resign'."
entertained a resolution complying with ' Article 38 (2) (a) and (b)) prorogued Parliament until 24.9.91.
regard to the notice of resolution, and that the Petitioners desired the widest possible publicity for their views.
and brought the Party and its leadership into disrepute and held it up to public ridicule.
United National Party with effect from 6th September, 1991.
Parliament and the Commissioner of Elections of the expulsion of the aforesaid eight members.
National Executive Committee's " endorsement " of that decision a copy of the expulsion resolution was also sent.
The petition in each case, makes reference to the unsuccessful actions filed in the DistrictCourtofColomboon5.9.91.
officers may, like Oliver Twist, ask for more and may give thanks for what they get.
the prayer for relief under Article 99 (13) (a).
themselves, namely the protection of the audi alteram partem rule.
elsewhere, desired to withdraw the offending averments.
(a) the entirety of paragraph 21 of the petition dated 4.10.91, and paragraph 22 of the supporting affidavit, inS.C.
as well as the corresponding passages in the other seven cases.
in his capacity as President. In addition, Messrs Premachandra and Athulathmudali had deceived the Cabinet on 28.8.91.
(c) That the notice had been signed without prior intimation or discussion within the Party organisations.
of the Party in his capacity as President.
in a criminal proceeding, a high degree of precision is not expected. However such a construction results in someanomalies.
of the United National Party."
discipline, justifying the expulsion of the Petitioner from the Party.
as a Member of the Party and of the Government Parliamentary Group.
without first raising the matter within the Party or the Government Parliamentary Group."
"this they did not elaborate.
Disciplinary Committee " in view of the Impeachment Resolution."
Respondents' objections and the 2nd Respondent's supporting counter-affidavit.
4. CAN THE WORKING COMMITTEE EXPEL A MEMBER ?
to the next Annual Convention of the Party.
(b) To see that all its officers and members conform to the Constitution and Standing Orders of the Party.
have the authority to exercise the powers and functions vested in it by the National Executive Committee."
The last of these is in no sense a "duty" of the Executive Committee, but is an independent provision.
transferred or delegated to any other body.
2.Rule 8 (3) (m) appears to authorise the Executive Committee to " vest " powers and functions intheWorkingCommittee.
It makes no mention of the procedure to be followed in regard to such " vesting." However, "vesting"morethan"
delegation ", and amounts to an abdication, renunciation divesting of a power by the Executive Committee if such a"
Constitutional amendment not by a mere resolution of the Executive Committee.
the Executive Committee of all its powers.
5. In any event the resolution proposed at a meeting of the Executive Committee held on 19.4.91 - "
provision, disciplinary powers of this nature were not intended to be transferred.
(a) in relation to disciplinary matters.
designated repositary of those powers.
Presidents Counsel's contentions depend almost entirely on the meaning of the word " vest ": which he seeks toequateto"
power or authority, there is no implication of a denudation of the grantor's powers, norofirrevocabilityorpermanency.
Members of Parliament, this would be an exercise of legislative power permitted by, and consistentwith,theConstitution.
Constitution, and therefore does not 'over-ride' the Constitution."
Rules, but is consistent with the Rules, and requires no amendment of the Rules.
used and not by inference therefrom. Shanmugam v. Commissioner for Registration of I. and P. Residents (2).
Division Organisation, or Main Association (Rule 2A(4)).
candidate for the Presidency (Rule 9 (a)), as well as candidates for other elections (Rule 9(b)).
shall select the Party candidate (Rule 9 (c)).
(e)It may issue directives to members as to their attitude at elections where there is no Party candidate (Rule 3(1)(c)).
implementation of, the Party Constitution (Rule 21).
quasi-judicial nature, especially where facts had to be inquired into.
makingthere was no legal fetter on his conduct in Parliament.
regarded as having altered those provisions by implication, in view of Article 82 (1) and (6).
Article 4 (a), read with Article 3, he is an elected " representative " of the people, andnotamere"delegate".
is free of any external restraints and is not subordinate to any other body.
Article 43 makes the Cabinet " collectively responsible and answerable "for " responsible " includes " answerable".
sphere they must necessarily be completely independent.
is not a member of Bristol, but he is a member of Parliament."
" I must follow my own judgement and conscience and not the voice of my Party leaders."

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