Source: https://www.kapruka.com/Sri_Lanka/law/view_legal_document.jsp?type=text&key1=Judgements&key2=SLR&key3=SLR-2000%20Vol.1-P172&key4=Constitution%20Judgements
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 16:05:05+00:00

Document:
Validity of the expulsion - Procedural justice -Audi alteram partem rule.
the Party and an urgent decision had to be taken to protect the welfare of the Party and to ensure the unity of its members.
(other than the Party Working Commitee) appointed by the Party Working. Committee.
petitioners a hearing before they were expelled. The expulsions of the petitioners were, therefore, invalid.
extraordinary, urgent circumstances recognized by courts of law."
6. R v. Thames Magistrates' Court, ex p. Polemis (1974) 1 W.L.R. 1371, 1375, 1378.
7. R v. Pharmaceutical Services Committee ex. p. Gordon D. Conway Ltd the Times, November 7. 1970.
APPLICATION in terms of Article 99(13)(a) of the Constitution challenging expulsion from the United National Party.
E. D. Wickremanayake with Gomin Dayasiri, Nigel Hatch and U. Abdul Najeem for the petitioners in Nos. 4 - 7/99.
D.S. Wijesinghe, P.C. with Asoka Somaratne, Dr. Jayamapthy Wickremaratne and C. Samaranayake for the petitioner in No. 8/99.
and Janaka Marapana for 1st to 4th respondents in Nos. 4 and 7/99.
respondents in Nos. 5 - 6/99.
Daya Pelpola with Anil Rajakaruna, Luxman Perera and Ronald Perera for respondents in No. 8/99.
essentially related to similar issues.
reference to "respondents" hereinafter means and includes only the 1st to 4th respondents.
member of the United National Party.
October 1999 and also by the Party Parliamentary Group and received publicity in the print and electronic media.
received wide publicity in the daily press, the state controlled electronic media as also other electronic media.
act according to and uphold the Constitution of the United National Party.
provisions of Articles 3.3(a), (b), (c) and (d) read with Article 2.1 and 2.2 of the Constitution of the Party."
Court determines that expulsion was valid the expulsion shall occur from the date of such determination."
from the Partyand declares that the petitioners remain members of the United National Party.
(vi) no inquiry was held against the petitioners.
of disciplinary action including expulsion or suspension against any individual member or an office bearerorotherwise..
that "The Party Working Committee shall appoint a Disciplinary Committee." However, in myview,therewasno"mandatory"
that the Working Committee lacked authority. Cf. per Fernando, J. in Gamini Dissanayake v. M.C.M. Kaleel and Others,(1).
material, it must inform the member concerned during the inquiry, and give him an opportunity of explaining the same.
documents. The Panel will be entitled to question the member or his witnesses to obtain any clarification.
should be signed by the Chairman of the Panel. . ."
Mr. Susil Moonesinghe and Dr. Stanley Kalpage and they have by Fax stated that they are unable to be present.
of the leader of the Party and of its Working Committee.
welfare of the Party and to ensure the unity of its members. He proposed the immediate expulsion of the eight persons.
Parliament be informed of the expulsion of five Members of Parliament.
A Committee of six persons was appointed to deal with other members who worked against the Party.
seven/ten days could be allowed for the submission of the member's explanation.
04. The Panel should notify the complainant also to be present at the inquiry."
November 1999 had been sent to him by the General Secretary of the U.N.P. (Mr.GaminiAtukorale,thesecondrespondent).
accuracy of the contents of the article under reference. (Copy of the article enclosed).
You have thus acted in breach of the Party Constitution, Party Discipline and contrary to the conduct requiredofaU.N.P.
statements to the media without prior approval of the Party.
a week therefrom to respond. I also wish to reiterate that I remain a member of the U.N.P."
government as set out in the letter conveying the decision to expel him.
statutory provision of which the managers had no notice at all.
committee, Dr. Amunugama was not invited to that meeting.
disciplinary proceedings are reported in the minutes of the meeting underthecaption"PresidentialElection1999".Mr.
and did not have even a remotely possible, albeit inadequate, opportunity of defending themselves.
Lord Mustill in R. u. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p. Doody,(10).
prejudicial to their views. They were expelled summarily.
inquiries were not observed has been established.
process would be duly followed.
defence. Cf. Abbott v. Sullivan,(14).
adjudicated after hearing both sides: "ubhaya paksayen ma adyanta asa ganna dadekda',saystheSaddharmarathnavaliya365.
Only Rhadamanthus, the cruel judge of Hell, it seems punished before he heard.
described as being of "universal application and founded on the plainest principles of justice". Per wiles, J. inCooperv.
Jowell, op. cit. pp. 377-399H.W.R. Wade & C.F. Forsyth, Administrative Law, (1995) pp. 497-578).
shouldst not eat?' And the same question was put to Eve also".
without having first an opportunity of defending himself." R v. Wilson,(18).
C.B. in Wood v. Wood,(19).
allowed to run wild." Hounslow L.B.C. v. Twickenham Garden Developments,(23).
with concern and respect. De Smith, Woolf & Jowell, p. 376, note 2.
were given: (1) Uselessness and (2) urgency.
influence the course of events."
absence of the departure from the essential principles of justice. The decision must be declared to be no decision."
The respondents maintained that a fair hearing would have been futile. It wouldhavemadenodifferencetotheresult.
(a) To accept the principles, policy and code of conduct of the Party.
(b) To conform to the Constitution, Rules and Standing Orders of the Party.
not to bring the Party into disrepute.
principles of natural justice would have been of no avail. A hearing would have been useless.
given, be answeredinexplicable conduct may be explained. Wade & Forsyth, op. cit.,p.527 Jackson,op.cit.p.137.
matters the Court was not concerned with useless formalities.
to the press about the formation of a national government. However, he was expelled on other grounds.
to explore the possibility of the formation of a national government rather than supporting a rival candidate.
formation of a national government without prior discussion or mandate of the Party."
(supra)R v. Secretary of State for the Environment ex p. Brent L.B. C.,(30)R v. Secretary of State for Education,exp.
and undoubtedly be seen to be done." See also per Donaldson, J. in Altco Ltd v. Sutherland,(33).
said: "Doing what is right may still result in unfairness if it is done in the wrong way."
their membership. Their conduct was tantamount to crossing the floor of the House and joining the ranks oftheotherside.
no need for further inquiry.
law to breach the law which it is their duty to uphold."
circumstances. For instance, the time for responding to a charge sheet, or making submissions may havehadtobereduced.
Education Board, (40) per Somers, J.": Jackson op. cit., p. 136.
necessary. Therefore there was a violation of the audi alteram partem rule.
well be that we would have to shut our eyes to the merits of the decision, and look only at the decision making process..
them was valid. In the same case, the majority held that the expulsions of all the petitioners were valid.
against the petitioners in the way it did.
exceptional circumstances permitted by law and in furtherance of the public good the need for which should be beyonddoubt."
If there is any doubt about such matters, "the expulsion will be struck down."
questions, including a "failure to observe principles of natural justice in the decisionmakingprocess."Dheeraratne,J.
after deciding whether a fair procedure had been followed.
the decision that was challenged, quoting with approval the observations of Kulatunga, J. in Dissanayake referredtoabove.
therefore "strict compliance with the audi aleram partern rule was a precondition to a valid expulsion from the party."
held that the expulsion was invalid and did not proceed to decide on the reasonableness or rationality of the decision.
for want of procedural propriety.
In all the circumstances, I make no order as to costs.
BANDARANATAKE, J. - I agree.
ISMAIL, J. - I agree.
Expulsions of the petitioners from the party determined invalid.

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