by Chitra Weeraratne
If the proposed Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution is made law, the Constitutional Council will not be answerable to the Supreme Court, under Article 126 of the Constitution, on alleged violation of fundamental rights, Attorney-at-Law, Bandula Wellala of Kelaniya had complained to the Supreme Court, in a petition filed on Monday, challenging the constitutionality of the proposed eighteenth amendment to the Constitution.

The petition said that the seventeenth amendment, has vested the Supreme Court, with the jurisdiction to hear fundamental rights violation application, against the Constitutional Council.

Hence the proposed eighteenth amendment, is in violation of both the seventeenth amendment to the constitution and Article 12(1) of the Constitution, which eliminates arbitrary treatment.

The proposed eighteenth amendment should be placed before the people at a referendum, the petition said.

Article 41(H) of the Constitution inserted by the seventeenth amendment, vests the fundamental rights jurisdiction against the Constitutional Council in the Supreme Court Clause 4 of the Bill titled the eighteenth amendment, seeks to repeal this power vested in the Supreme Court. Hence the clause 4 of the Bill violates the seventeenth amendment, which is already enacted, the petition explained.

Clause (5) of the Bill seeks to amend Article 41 (J), hence Clause (5) violates Article 3 of the constitution, which vests the sovereignty in the people. Hence Clause 4 and Clause 5 are both unconstitutional.

The bill should be placed before the people at a referendum, the petition said.

Dr. Jayampathy Wickramaratne with Gaston Jayakody will support this petition before the Supreme Court shortly.

The respondent is the Attorney General.