The Attorney General today moved Supreme Court to dismiss all Fundamental Rights petitions filed challenging dissolution of Parliament and holding the General Election on June 20, in limine since they are not complying with the constitutional provisions.
Additional Solicitor General Indika Demuni de Silva appearing for the Attorney General told court that all petitions had been filed beyond the time period stipulated under Article 126(2) of the constitution.
'E-Filing system was put in place even during the curfew enabling the petitioners to file fundamental right petitions. They should have filed these petitions at the initial stage, Additional Solicitor General said.
Meanwhile, the Additional Solicitor General alleged that nobody has made a single complaint against the accepting of nominations at the time the process was commenced.
'The petitioners did not initiate legal action challenging the acceptance of nominations from March 12 to March 19. That is the appropriate time they could invoke Supreme Court's jurisdiction,' she said.
She further alleged that the petitioners have failed to arrange necessary parties to the petitions by violating the basic principles.
'Number of political parties contesting General Election have not been brought before court. It is suppression of materials. The petitioners have taken an unilateral decision to only bring Attorney General and President before court seeking relief. If an Interim Order is issued, every steps taken to hold the General Election will stand canceled', Additional Solicitor General added.
The Additional Solicitor General charged that the petitioners are seeking relief affecting the entire election process and it would ended up with infringing the rights of people and political parties.
One of the petitions had mentioned that the de-facto curfew has been imposed by the President. It is a misrepresentation of facts. The President has never imposed curfew. The curfew was imposed in terms of the Quarantine Ordinance. Most of petitioners did not mention that they are legitimate voters contesting the election. In one of petitions, the petitioner was an incorporate body which does not have franchise rights, the Additional Solicitor General further added.
While explaining the contradictory positions taken by petitioners in different occasions, the Additional Solicitor General said the petitioners have accepted the process of nomination (Approbate) and later reject the (Reprobate) the entire election process unfavorable to them.
'No prejudice has caused to anybody when accepting nominations. The act of tendering nominations has not been challenged by anyone. It means parliament has been dissolved lawfully,' she said.
Supreme Court five-judge-bench comprising Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, Justices Buwaneka Aluwihare, Justice Sisira de Abrew, Justice Priyantha Jayawardena and Justice Vijith Malalgoda fixed further hearing for next Tuesday (26).
M.A. Sumanthiran PC with counsel Ermiza Tegal appeared for Charitha Gunaratne. Senior Counsel Viran Corea with counsel Bhavani Fonseka and Luwie Ganeshathasan appeared for CPA and Dr. P. Saravanamuttu. President's Counsel Geoffrey alagarathnam, Pulasthi Hewamana, Lasantha Garusinghe, Anurangi Singh instructed by Ishara Gunewardane appeared for petitioner S.C.C. Elankovan.
Additional Solicitor General Indika Demuni De Silva with Senior Deputy Solicitor General Nerin Pulle appeared for the Attorney General.
Romesh de Silva PC with Ali Sabry PC , counsel Ruwantha Cooray appeared for Secretary to the Presiden Dr. P.B. Jayasundera. President’s Counsel Saliya Peiris with Counsel V. K. Choksy appeared for the Election Commission. Ashtika Theivendra appeared for S. Ratnajeevan Hoole. Sanjeeeva Jayawardena PC appeared for intervenient petitioner Ven. Muruththettuwe Ananda Thera. Gamini Marapana PC with Navin Marapana PC, Counsel Kaushalya Molligoda and Uchitha Wickremesinghe appeared for Ven.Attapatukande Ananda Thera, an intervention party. Senior Counsel Kanishka Vitharana appeared for intervenient petitioner Premanath C. Dolawatta.a