Sri Lankan Parliament Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena announced the Supreme Court determination on the Telecommunications (Amendment) Bill.

According to the announcement the Supreme Court determination states that certain clauses in the Bill are inconsistent with the constitution, and certain clauses should be passed by a special majority.

The Supreme Court determination delivered by the speaker in parliament is as follows:

“I wish to inform Parliament that I have received the determination of the Supreme Court in respect of the bill titled Sri Lanka Telecommunications Amendment, which was challenged in Supreme Court in terms of Article 121(1) of the Constitution. In the said determination, the Supreme Court has summarized the constitutionality of the bill as follows.

Clause 8. Proposed Section 9A(2) of the bill is inconsistent with Article 12(1) of the Constitution. However, the inconsistency shall cease, if word ‘may’ be replaced with the word ‘shall’, as set out in the determination of the Supreme Court.

Clause 9, (Nine) of the bill is inconsistent with Article 12(1) of the Constitution and only can be passed with special majority required under Paragraph 2 of the Article 84. However, the inconsistency shall cease, if clause is amended as set out in the determination of the Supreme Court.

Clause 12, Proposed Section 17(10) of the bill is inconsistent with Article 12(1) of the Constitution and can only be passed with the special majority of Parliament required under Article 84 (2). However, the inconsistency shall cease, if clause is amended as set out in the determination of the Supreme Court.

Clause 13, Proposed Section 17A(1) and 17B of the bill are inconsistent with Article 12(1) of the Constitution and can only be passed with the special majority of the Parliament required under Article 84(2 ). However, the inconsistency shall cease, if clause is amended as set out in the determination of the Supreme Court.

Clause 18 (5), Proposed Section 22(3)A and 22(3)B of the bill is inconsistent with the provisions of Article 14(1)A, 14(1)G and 12(1) of the Constitution and shall only be passed with the special majority of Parliament required under Article 84(2). However, the said inconsistency shall cease, if clause 18(5) is amended as set out in the determination of the Supreme Court.

Clause 18(7), Proposed Section 22(7) of the bill is inconsistent with Article 12(1) and Article 14(1) A of the Constituion. However, the inconsistency shall cease, if clause is amended as set out in the determination of the Supreme Court.

Clause 20, Proposed Section 22(A)D is irrational and inconsistent with Article 12(1) of the Constitution and shall only be passed by the special majority of Parliament required under Article 84(2).

Clause 33, Proposed Section 59A is inconsistent with Article 12(1) of the Constitution and shall only be passed by the special majority of Parliament required under Article 84(2),(2). However, the inconsistency shall cease, if proposed 59A is deleted.

Clause 35, Proposed Section 68(1)A, B and 68(1)A, C of the bill are inconsistent with Article 12(1) of the Constitution and shall only be passed by the special majority required under Article 84(2). However, the inconsistency shall cease, if clause 35 is amended by deleting the Proposed Section 68(1)A, B and 61A, C as set out in the determination of the Supreme Court.

The other provisions in the bill are not inconsistent with any provisions of the Constitution. I order that determination of the Supreme Court be printed in the official report of the today’s proceedings of the House.”

(newsfirst.lk)