Source: https://www.kapruka.com/Sri_Lanka/law/view_legal_document.jsp?type=text&key1=Judgements&key2=SLR&key3=SLR-1994%20Vol.1-P319&key4=Constitution%20Judgements
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 08:54:57+00:00

Document:
FEBRUARY 3RD, 5TH, 6TH, 7TH AND 11TH, 1992.
impeachment motion against the President and revoking the signatures -RecommendationofDisciplinaryCommitteeofPar"
were dismissed in Dissanayake v. Kaleel SC (Special) Nos. 4 to 11/91 - S.C. Minutes of 03.12.91.
through mistake, misrepresentation or compulsion.
The petitioner in S.C. 2/92 (2nd petitioner) also signed theNoticeinpurportedpursuanceofaConstitutionalright.
compulsion or that he did not intend to withdraw and revoke his signature on the Notice.
proceeded with. A no-confidence motion was moved against the Speaker.
Group. The petitioner did not deny or explain this newspaper report.
were filed. An application was made to lead oral evidence on behalf of the petitioners.
Presidential System, without prior internal discussion.
1.It is the substance of the charges and not the form that is important.
the Court to determine which of the two conflicting versions was more probable and credible, and therefore disallowed.
4.The Working Committee had delegated disciplinary powers to deal with the petitioners.
(b) the notices did not specify the allegation against the petitioners and were no more than an invitation for a decision.
Petitioners and invite their observations.
"observations" and not for "explanations".
whether natural justice required an oral hearing and additional evidence.
kind known to our law.
because the Notice was signed in the exercise of a Constitutional right.
theabsence of prior internal discussion before continuing to support the notice.
09.10.91 establish deceitful action towards the Party and the Group.
so. But they failed to state factual matters peculiarly within their knowledge.
deceitful conduct was a matter of inference. Whether they established misconduct warranting expulsion was amatteroflaw.
the Party and to fellow members.
speech, yet the gravamen of the charge is the undoubted lack of prior internal discussion.
and appropriate penalty, and the defect in regard to the fourth was not fatal.
necessarily entitle him to contend that the inquiry was in breach of the audi alteram partem rule.
the Petitioner's participation in the subsequent proceedings gave the Committee a locus paenitendiae.
16.The freedom of speech in public which an MP is entitled to is constrained by the requirements ofPartydiscipline.
proceedings can then validly be taken.
Party Constitution by reason of their misconduct in signing the motion without firstraisingtheissueswiththeParty.
privilege of persisting with their misconduct without sanction.
Party Membership and their status as MPs.
the formal link between them and the Party. The decision to expel the petitioners is not vitiated by bias.
1.Dissanayake v. Kaleel SC (Special) Nos. 4 to 11/91 - SC Minutes of 03.12.91.
2.Pakir Mohideen v Mohemadu Cassim  4 NLR 299.
3. Cadar Saibu V. Sayadu Beebi  4 NLR 130.
4. Ridge v. Baldwin  AC 40, 132.
5.Stevenson v. United Road Transport Union  3 All ER 29, 41.
6.Labouchere v. Whancliffe  13 Ch. D 346, 351.
7.Davis v. Carew-Pole  1 WLR 833.
8.Russell v. Duke of Norfolk  1 All Er 109.
9. Posluns v Toronto Stock Exchange  67 DLR (2d) 165.
10.De Verteuil v. Knaggs  AC 557118 LT 758.
11. Pillai v. Singapore City Council  1 WLR 1278. 1286.
12.Stringer v. Ministry of Housing  1 All ER 65, 75.
13.Calvin v. Carr  2 All ER 440, 448, 449, 452.
14. Joseph Perera v. Attorney-General SC Applications No. 107 - 109/96 - SC Minutes of 25.05.87.
15. Dissanayake v. Sri Jayewardenapura University  2 Sri. LR 264.
16. Austin v. Keefe 1971 US 402, 415, 419.
17.John v. Rees  2 WLR 1294, 1332 (citing unreported case of Fountaine v. Chesterton).
18. Fisher v. Keane  XI Ch. D. 353, 360.
19. R v. Immigrational Tribunal ex p. Mehmet  1 WLR 795.
20. Sloan v. General Medical Council  2 All ER 686.
21. Board of Mining Examination v. Ramjee AIR 1977 SC 965.
L W. Athulathmudali PC with R. C. Gooneratne, Dr.RanjitFernando,Mahendra Amerasekera,DhamsiriFonseka,T.M.S.
Nanayakkara, S. J. Liyanage, Nigel Hatch, Nalin Dissanayake,MissRanjiniMorawaka,MissHyacinthFernandoandM.B.
RonaldPerera and Lakshman Ranasinghe for 1st to 4th respondents.
No appearance for 5th respondent.
fact and law involved are almost identical, and both petitions were heard and determined together.
and remained silent spectators like some characters in a novel, unable to find a path to tread."
this was all about ... the issue of certain allegations against ... the President."
"We write to hereby inform you that we do not support the said Resolution.
Those of us who have placed our signatures thereto do hereby withdraw and revoke our signatures and consent thereto.
yourself to place the same on the Order Paper or Order Book of Parliament.
provisions of the Constitution referred to above."
The Petitioner in S.C. 2/92 (the "2nd Petitioner") also signed the Notice in purported pursuance of aConstitutionalright.
resolution and delivered it to the Speaker.
time and hence did not vote against that motion, which was defeated.
of this Court in the cases tiled by the expelled eight Membersthat was delivered on 3.12.91.
matters set out in the report of the Disciplinary Committee.
Leadership and more particularly the Executive Presidential system have been criticized.
benches against the Motion, and have up to date not tendered any reason or excuse for such breach.
(3), (6) of the Party Constitution."
The President and Mr. M. D. A. Gunatillake, M.P., did not participate in the discussion or in the voting.
(g) he intended to address the public at rallies of the Lalith-Gamini group.
"Sirikotha" by 4 p.m. on Friday, 27th December, 1991.
rescind or vary or confirm its decision of 6th December, 1991.
Executive Committee has the power to delegate its functions relating to the disciplinary control of members of the Party.
Constitution, which cannot be reviewed or controlled by the Party and/or any of its committees.
by the Constitution of the country which I, as a Member of Parliament, have sworn to defend and uphold.
3. I deny having indulged in any deceitful action against the Party and the Government Parliamentary Group.
4. I deny the allegation contained in paragraph 3 of your letter.
5. In view of the foregoing, the allegation contained in paragraph 4 does not arise.
6. My absence from Parliament on 10th October 1991, is not a violation of Party discipline.
7. I deny that I have violated any provisions of the Party constitution.
propose to adduce further evidence to refute the allegations contained therein.
Petitioners the same day. On 3.1.92 these petitions were filed.
said to have been made on 10.10.91, and the precise contents of an admitted conversation between the 2nd PetitionerandMr.
M. L. M. Aboosally M.P., Minister of State for Plantations on 10.10.91. Mr. Choksy P.C., did notobject.WerequestedMr.
Athulathmudali to state precisely what facts he proposed to establish by oral evidence.
"Mr. Ariyaratne Jayatilaka was seen by me on 10.10.91 with a history of pain in the chest and vertigo ? [sic]Anginalpain.
He has been advised to rest for a fey days."
affidavits of the opposing sides, by seeing and hearing the witnesses and deciding on their credibility.
the said motion was taken."
convey an inconsistent direction through another intermediary.
the Petitioner was not in a position to vote with the Government against the said motion, that he should not be present..."
versions was more probable and credible.
The application to lead oral evidence was therefore refused.
itand the 2nd Petitioner is one who had repudiated his signature on R2, and whose knowledge of English,accordingtoMr.
way intending to weaken the authority of Pakir Mohidin v. Mohamadu Cassim.
for the punishment of such offender."
whether expressly enumerated (in Rule 8 or 9, or elsewhere) or not.
" ... The following resolution was proposed by Mr. P. Almon Peiris and seconded by Mr. Piyasoma Upali.
also produced minutes of several meetings held in 1988 and 1989, referring to similar resolutions in the same way.
in my view, did have the delegated disciplinary powers to deal with the Petitioners.
did not disclose these to the Petitioners and invite their observations.
Respondent's delay in sending letters dated 21.12.91 had beenexplainedascausedbyPartyactivities,theS.A.A.R.C.
the validity of the expulsions. But they elected to reply to this putative charge sheet, bytheirlettersdated26.12.91.
only for their "observations", accordingly, he said, they need not have done more than toadmitordenytheallegations.
denials, but by stating their position on a number of matters.
Executive Presidential System, without prior internal discussion.
These allegations were said to constitute breaches of various provisions of the Party constitution.
signing took responsibility for whatever was in the Notice. The question is not his responsibility oraccountabilityafter.
or that they had signed it in the exercise of a Constitutional right (for they did not claim that the retractionwasvoid).
Here too the Petitioners did not deny the absence of prior internal discussion before continuing to support the Notice.
submission. But they did not criticise the Speaker on that ground.
violation of fundamental obligations of loyalty and honesty owed to the Party and to fellow members.
called rebels and who in his speeches had attacked the President ..."
acts alleged, they could have. directly denied the allegation in a straightforward mannerif they wishedtoaddthatDr.
is the undoubted lack of prior internal discussion.
... will almost inevitably have a prejudicial effect, the law ought to be slow to admit such dubiousprocedure"saysProf.
deprived by his dismissal. This position is maintained by the appellant through his counsel before YourLordships."(atp.
the Appellant was a director) and another firm (Lido).
penalty, the matter was again considered and it was decided to impose the maximum fine of $5,000 on R. A. Daly, Jr.
and it was the general understanding that his association with the Daly firm was to be severed in all respects.
evidence and replied that there was no dispute about the evidence but only as to the interpretation tobeplaceduponit.
those in the present case. In Ridge v Baldwin the appellant was never told of the case which hehadtomeet,whereasMr.
resolution passed against him until that period expired and Posluns had declined to resign.
services and pay the remaining indenture fee".
which the appellant received was in a letter dated 20.12.1915 from the Protector of Immigrants setting out fourallegations.
fair opportunity of placing his answer to the allegations. Further clarification was furnished byletterdated27.12.1915.
On 7.1.1916 the Colonial Secretary informed the appellant that the Governor did not feel justified incancelingtheorder.
subsequent proceedings a full and fair opportunity of meeting the case against him was given.
hearing may sometimes be cured by a "full re-hearing" by another body was recognisedbythePrivycouncilinPillaiv.
result, reached by fair methods"whether "the appellant's case has received, overall, fullandfairconsideration".(pp.
questions of law arose. I therefore refrain from making any order for costs in favour of the Respondents.
been claimedhe has been joined only for the purpose of giving him notice of these proceedings.
The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under the Proviso to Article99(13)(a)oftheConstitution.
they obtain a determination from this Court that the impugned expulsion was invalid.
was a member of the NEC of the UNP from 1977, and functioned as District Minister for Gampaha duringtheFirstParliament.
resolution in terms of Article 38(2) (b) and further drew the attention of the President to Proviso (C) to Article 70(1).

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