Source: https://www.kapruka.com/Sri_Lanka/law/view_legal_document.jsp?type=text&key1=Judgements&key2=SLR&key3=SLR-1993%20Vol.2-P90&key4=Constitution%20Judgements
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 16:45:08+00:00

Document:
JULY 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 AND AUGUST 2, 3, 1993.
requirement of party discipline - Nature of membership of a political party - Obligations of membership.
the contents of which related to democracy and non-holding of electionsoftheSLFPwhichwascommittedtodemocracy.
invalid some consideration of the merits is obviously required.
constitution from which arises contractual obligations of the membership. These obligations are eitherexpressorimplied.
under the Constitution. The expulsion of the petitioner is therefore invalid.
1. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v Wednesbury Corporation  2 All ER 680  1 KB 223.
2. Dawkins v. Antrobus (1879) 17 Ch D 615 [1881-51] All ER Rep. 126(1881) 44 LT 557.
3. Richardson - Gardner v. Freemantle (1871) 24 LT 81.
5. Hopkinson v. Marquis of Exeter (1867) LR 5 Eq. 63 (1867) 37 LJ Ch. 173.
6. Hamlet v. General Municipal Boilermakers and Allied Trade Union  1 Ali ER 631.
7. Dissanayake and Others v. Kaleel and Others - SC (Spl) 4 - 11/91 - SC Mins of 03-12-1991.
8.Parameswaran Pillai Bashkaran Pillai and another v. State Prosecutor AIR 1951 Travencore - Cochin 45.
9. P. S. Menon v. State of Kerala and Others AIR (1970) Kerala 165.
11. Gokaraju Ranagaraju v. State of Andra Pradesh AIR (1981) SC 1473.
12. Adams v. Adams  WLR 188.
13. In re James  2 WLR 1 Ch 41.
14. Extein Norton v. Selby County, State of Tennesse (1886) 118 U. S. Lawyers' Ed. Book 30 page 178.
15. In re K. Stephen Perera et al 68 NLR 332.
16. Yapa Abeywardena v. Harsha Abeywardene and another SC 51/87 (Spl).
17. Scading v. Lorant (1851) 3 HLC 418, 447.
18. Jayatilleke v. Kaleel SC Nos. 1 and 2/92 - SC Minutes of 28-02-1992.
APPLICATION challenging expulsion from political party.
D. S. Wijesinghe, PC with Maxie Bastiansz, S. Mahenthiran, Nihal Fernando, A. M. Jiffery, Maithree Gunaratne with K.
Sivanathan and Preethikumari Arachchige of Sivanathan and Associates for Petitioner.
17th to 20th, 23rd, 27 to 36 respondents.
Manohara R. de Silva for 5th, 8th to 10th, 22nd and 26th respondents.
21st, 24th, 25th and 37th respondents.
clients submitted to court that he supports the position taken up by the petitioner.
petitioner to the media and his suspension from membership of the SLFP continued unrevoked.
certificate indicating petitioner's inability to attend due to hisillness,wastenderedonhisbehalfbyMr.S.L.
nominated by persons not validly holding office as members of the Central Committee of the SLFP.
to expel the petitioner with immediate effect. This decision was communicated to the petitioner by letter P40 dated 3.6.93.
public news paper published and distributed in Sri Lanka.
position. Therefore, a non-stop pressure from the bottom to the top is inevitable.
is not valid in fact."
go forward without creating such a change and innovation as this inside our party.
establishment of democracy. There are two camps in the party now. A party so divided cannot March towards a specific goal.
party leadership has accepted the position that it cannot win in a just election held to elect office bearers.
Premadasa can be defeated in a just' election. He will hold such elections as he can win.
that purpose. Today what we lack is only the necessary leadership. "
25.1.93 sent to me by you, you have admitted that you made statements to the said "Lakdiva" newspapers of 24.1.93.
general public to hold them in contempt and disgrace.
act of grave misconduct. It is also a matter of violation of party discipline.
For your easy perusal I am annexing hereto a copy of the full dialogue as published in the said newspaper "Lakdiva"
and you are hereby requested to show cause within 14 days of the receipt of these statements.
I am in receipt of your letter dated 3rd February 1993 received by me on the 5th instant.
(a) There has to be due and proper elections within the party and primarily for the Central Committee.
(b) The party leader must be duly and properly elected.
many years without a proper election.
Wickramaratne, MP, Mr. Mahinda Rajapakse, MP, amongst many others.
that meetings thereof were not summoned in breach of the imperative provisions of the Party Constitution for several years.
organization in my electorate) to express my views.
party. My views were not placed for discussion at any forum of the SLFP.
up for discussion within the SLFP.
have a duty to bring to the notice of the membership of the SLFP and the supporters of the SLFP my views.
personally against anyone inclusive of Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike, MP.
elections be held to the Central Committee and for the Party Leadership.
and/or acted in breach of party discipline in granting the interview.
in the best interest of the SLFP and of the Country.
Bandaranaike, MP, Mr. Anura Bandaranaike, MP, Mr. StanleyThilakeratne,MP,Mr.NandimithraEkanayake,MP,Mr.S.B.
them for making the said statements.
letter has been actuated by malice.
of members numbering 18 voted for the expulsion of the petitioner, 4 voted against and 3 abstained.
proceedings, were submitted to us in writing at our request, by learned President's Counsel for the petitioner.
necessarily implies knowledge of one's rights plus an election to abandon those rights.
the members of the Disciplinary Committee to the 1st respondent is ultra vires the constitution of the party.
taking disciplinary action against the petitioner.
5. The expulsion was invalid by reason of malafides.
Central Committee to invoke the provisions of the selfsame constitution to justify the expulsion of the petitioner.
the defence of the petitioner etc. vitiated the decision to expel the petitioner.
of the words of caution of the great American Chief Justice, Marshall that 'judges should not enter thepoliticalthicket'.
He submitted that the jurisdiction of this court does not extend to an examination of the merit worthiness of theexpulsion.
into account matters which were irrelevant, was held to be not falling within the scope of review by court.
President of the party has the power to suspend a member from his membership (Rule 14 vii).
irregularity of not holding elections for 7 long years. He is right in that submission.
appointing him to the post of Assistant Secretary of the Central Committee by the same letter.
(2) Appointment of 16th-19th respondents who are Members of Parliament by the 1st respondent on 2.7.91.
were elected as Members of Parliament subsequently.
20.10.92, the SLFP parliamentary group unanimously decided to appoint two other Members of Parliament.
as a member of the Central Committee.
Committee at the time of her appointment.
power on several occasions since its birth in 1951 and which now forms the largest parliamentarygroupintheopposition.
their office and in the ostensible discharge of their duties, had the competence de facto to expel him.
for all citizens, and the creation of a classless society as the fundamental features of socialism.
aforesaid two fold social democratic principles.
furtherance of the objects of the party and to popularize the party among the people.
(iii) It shall be the duty of every member to assist and support the candidates nominated by the party in all elections.
has been agreed upon by the Central Committee of the SLFP on 19.7.93, as evidenced by P62, after this application wasfiled.
No rules or regulations appear to have been made pertaining to discipline. None was cited before us.
circular letter from the 8th respondent who was the then General Secretaryoftheparty,addressedtoallMembersof.
in evidence that the petitioner expressed similar views about party elections at certain seminars organized by the party.
'conspirators' in that letter stirred up a hornet's nest in the party circles.
condemned in that petition as being dictatorial.
that they were irregular (P20F & P20F1). 5th respondent made statements to the mediacontradictingthatposition(P20F2).
suspended by the 1st respondent by letter P23 of 16.10.92.
to perform its functions without objection and the general membership including the petitioner submitted to its authority."
party is in power or in the opposition. To foster party cohesion discipline among its members becomesabsolutelynecessary.
constitution, from which arises contractual obligations of the membership. These obligations are either express or implied.
and another (16). In particular, he drew our attention to the following passage from that judgment at page 7.
some even judicial." Mr. H. L. de Silva PC. submitted that in respect of non-constitutional functions ofamemberthe"
to a relationship perhaps that of master and servant.
you and try democracy in your own house."
and the resultant party disunity.
she never failed to exercise, was always menacing.
including publication that is enshrined in Article 14 (1) (a) of our Constitution which is the supreme lawofthecountry.
or inferior norms arises. Inherent in the two freedoms is the liberty to make adjustments............"
his freedom of speech guaranteed under the Constitution.
differential treatment, I am glad that we have been mercifully saved from entering 'a political thicket'.
detail. The application rests largely on the legal issues that arise for determination.
Bandaragama electorate in the Kalutara District. In 1989 he was elected to the Kalutara District as a Member of Parliament.
Constitution for the breach of Party discipline.
elected and ceased to hold office.
application by way of appeal or review of proceedings or order made in the District Court.
who at the time of the making of the impugned order of expulsion of the petitioner were de facto office holders.
ordinary legal remedies to set right anything done by the officers, taking the law into their own hands ".
placed on the de facto doctrine which has a wide application. I am fortified by Professor Wade's comments at page 337.
early date to uphold copyhold titles enrolled by stewards of manors who were not properly appointed ".
office, made orders which are deemed to be valid in law. The members of the Committee have exercised their powers de facto.
There has been no prior direct proceeding in which the validity of their appointments or rights havebeenchallenged.
office holder cannot be made when the validity to an act done by the de facto holder of the office is being challenged.
before the expulsion in a direct proceeding for a declaration that the Central Committee had ceased to hold office.
the validity of his appointment.
not to avail himself of it. The order cannot be characterised as unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense (1)forbadreasons.
the Central Committee was " unreasonable " in the circumstances of this case.
of the petitioner is valid.
a benefit and reject the rest.
petitioner to question the validity of the appointment of the Central Committee and the office bearers of the party.
to avoid the consequences of his expulsion by the Central Committee.
forum in which to express, his views and he was justified in raising issues in public.
1/3rd of the membership to set the party machinery into operation for his reforms.
to party discipline and must take the consequences for it.
section of party opinion and consists of the party hierachy.
(a) 18 voted for petitioner's expulsion.
(b) 4 voted against his expulsion.
clear that the faction the petitioner represented has only minimal support.
to public vilification of the party and the leadership.
to abandon the existing party forum and to voice these matters in public.
public the answer depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.
Had we not made this struggle, there would have been no room for the existence of any active politics intheSLFPbynow.
forward without creating such a change and innovation as this inside our party.
leadership has accepted the position that it cannot win in a just election held to elect office bearers.
ourselves strong. We shall have a leadership that can guide us towards one goal. But when it is not so................?
Premadasa can be defeated in a " just " election. He will hold such elections that he can win.
A member of Parliament is entitled to freedom of speech in public but subject to the constraints ofpartydiscipline.
The comments that are disparaging and injurious to the party and leadership would not give a person the protection.
is tenuous, insubstantial and wholly lacking in particulars and vague. I hold it has not been established.
expulsion of a member is the severance of the formal contractual link between the member and the party.
upon areas where decisions are matters purely of political judgment, unless manifestly unreasonable.
The limitations of the jurisidiction of this Court have been correctly and precisely expressed by Kulatunga, J. in S.C.
based on the Political Party System will become unworkable ".
I hold that the expulsion of the petitioner is valid for the foregoing reasons and I dismiss the application with costs.

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