Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne today informed Parliament that he has received copies of two additional petitions filed against the 22nd Constitutional Amendment Bill.

The Speaker noted that these submissions come on top of the seven petitions already received on August 19 and 20. 

He explained that three petition copies were handed in on August 19th, followed by four more on August 20th.

With today’s additions, a total of nine petitions challenging the 22nd Amendment Bill have now been received by the Speaker. (Newswire)

The post Two more petitions filed against 22nd Amendment Bill appeared first on Newswire.

Speaker Dr. Jagath Wickramaratne today certified three major financial reform bills passed by Parliament, officially enacting the Prevention of Money Laundering (Amendment) Act, No. 16 of 2026, the Financial Transactions Reporting (Amendment) Act, No. 17 of 2026, and the Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Financing (Amendment) Act, No. 18 of 2026.

The Prevention of Money Laundering (Amendment) Bill, passed on July 9 with a special majority following a Supreme Court ruling on Clause 14, strengthens Sri Lanka’s legal framework against money laundering. It expands the scope of offences, allows proceedings without a predicate conviction, enhances freezing and confiscation powers, introduces new asset management and disposal mechanisms, increases penalties, and broadens investigative powers and international cooperation.

The Financial Transactions Reporting (Amendment) Bill, passed with amendments, updates compliance with global standards on money laundering, terrorist financing, and proliferation financing. It introduces risk‑based and customer due diligence requirements, expands obligations for reporting institutions, includes Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs) as financial businesses, strengthens the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU), extends transaction suspension orders from seven to fourteen working days, creates a National Committee on Anti‑Money Laundering and Counter‑Terrorism Financing, and improves implementation of targeted financial sanctions under UN Security Council resolutions. It also clarifies definitions and corrects inconsistencies between Sinhala and English texts.

The Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Financing (Amendment) Bill, passed without amendments, further aligns Sri Lanka’s measures against terrorist financing with international standards and UN conventions, while supporting preparations for the country’s forthcoming Mutual Evaluation under the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) framework.

According to a Parliament statement, these reforms will safeguard the integrity of Sri Lanka’s financial system, strengthen national security, and reaffirm the country’s commitment to meeting international obligations. (Newswire)

The post Speaker certifies three financial reform bills strengthening Sri Lanka’s Anti‑Corruption framework appeared first on Newswire.

Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne today (21) endorsed the certificate for the National Environmental (Amendment) Bill, which was passed by Parliament.

Although the National Environmental Act, No. 47 of 1980, together with the National Environmental (Amendment) Acts, No. 56 of 1988 and No. 53 of 2000, significantly strengthened environmental protection, this amendment was introduced in recognition of the fact that the existing legal framework is no longer adequate to address current environmental and institutional challenges.

The Act is intended to further strengthen the legal framework for the protection, management, and enhancement of the environment, improve regulatory mechanisms relating to waste disposal, and modernize the mechanisms used for environmental protection.

Accordingly, the Bill comes into force as the National Environmental (Amendment) Act, No. 15 of 2026. (Newswire)

The post Speaker endorses the National Environmental (Amendment) Bill appeared first on Newswire.

The Rescue, Rehabilitation and Insolvency (Corporate and Personal) Bill has officially become law, with Speaker of Parliament Jagath Wickramaratne today (17) endorsing the certificate on the legislation. 

The Bill was first read in Parliament on 17 March 2026 and was subsequently passed by Parliament following a debate held on 6 May 2026.

The Act provides for the amendment of the Rescue, Rehabilitation and Insolvency (Corporate and Personal) Act, the Companies Act, No. 7 of 2007, the Inland Revenue Act, No. 24 of 2017, and the Mediation Boards Act, No. 72 of 1988, while repealing the Insolvency Ordinance (Chapter 97).

The Act introduces specific procedures relating to personal insolvency, including provisions for debt protection, moratoria, and debt restructuring, while ensuring the protection of a debtor’s reasonable income and essential assets.

In addition, the legislation addresses matters relating to corporate governance, receivership, and cross-border insolvency, with a view to enhancing predictability and confidence in the credit market.

The Act is also intended to provide a fresh start for honest individual debtors and establish a structured mechanism for the rehabilitation of distressed but fundamentally viable companies.

Accordingly, the Rescue, Rehabilitation and Insolvency (Corporate and Personal) Bill shall come into force as the Rescue, Rehabilitation and Insolvency (Corporate and Personal) Act, No. 12 of 2026. (Newswire)

The post Sri Lanka’s new insolvency law comes into force after Speaker’s endorsement appeared first on Newswire.

Sri Lanka’s Supreme Court has ruled that the Prevention of Money Laundering Amendment Bill may be passed by a simple majority in Parliament, except for certain clauses requiring a special majority.

Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne informed Parliament today (09) that the Court determined Clause 14, proposed Sections 12A and 12B, and Clause 18, proposed Sections 17A, 17B, and 17C, must be passed by a special majority. 

However, the Court further stated that these clauses could also be passed by a simple majority if amended as proposed.

The Prevention of Money Laundering Amendment Bill was challenged in the Supreme Court under Article 121(1) of the Constitution. (Newswire)

The post Money Laundering Bill : Speaker says special majority required for key clauses appeared first on Newswire.

Speaker of Parliament Jagath Wickramaratne on Wednesday (June 3) endorsed the certificate on the Inland Revenue (Amendment) Bill, which introduces mandatory Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) certificates for significant financial transactions as part of wider reforms to modernize tax administration.

The Inland Revenue (Amendment) Act, No. 11 of 2026, amending the Inland Revenue Act, No. 24 of 2017, was passed on May 19, 2026. 

The Act clarifies provisions, strengthens compliance and enforcement, improves accuracy in tax calculations, supports strategic economic objectives, and enhances transparency and anti‑money laundering measures.

Key changes include revisions to income calculation, clearer rules on exemptions for specific projects and businesses, and an expanded scope for disclosure of information to relevant authorities.

Accordingly, the Inland Revenue (Amendment) Bill now comes into force as the Inland Revenue (Amendment) Act No. 11 of 2026. (Newswire)

The post Speaker endorses the Inland Revenue (Amendment) Bill appeared first on Newswire.

A tense situation arose in Parliament today (20) when Opposition MP Chamara Sampath Dassanayake attempted to raise an issue regarding his inability to participate in a China‑sponsored economic programme for MPs scheduled for May 5–6, due to a travel ban imposed on him by the court.

Dassanayake told the House that his passport was in court custody and that, despite presenting a motion with a letter from the Parliament Secretary General and an invitation from the Chinese Government, repeated objections by the Bribery Commission had prevented him from travelling.

Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne intervened, stressing that matters before the court cannot be discussed in Parliament. “The court has issued an order. We cannot discuss issues of the court in Parliament,” he said.

Leader of the House Bimal Rathnayake also commented that the issue was not a privilege matter, and remains a court issue.

“However, we gave you a chance to speak on it. What you are saying now is against regulations. I request you not to fall victim to other people’s political agendas. You are an accused in the case, there is a court order related to your case, and it cannot be spoken in Parliament,” he added.

A heated exchange thereafter erupted between the MP Chamara Sampath Dassanayake, Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne, Minister Bimal Rathnayake and other MPs in the Chamber. (Newswire)

The post Tense situation in Parliament as MP Chamara raises travel ban against him appeared first on Newswire.

Speaker of Parliament Jagath Wickramaratne today informed the House of two Supreme Court determinations delivered under Article 121 (1) of the Constitution, relating to key financial legislation.

First, the Court ruled that the Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Financing (Amendment) Bill is fully consistent with the Constitution. 

The Speaker said the Court had determined that “the Bill or any provision thereof is not inconsistent with any provision of the Constitution,” allowing the legislation to proceed without alteration.

Separately, the Supreme Court issued its determination on the Financial Transaction Reporting (Amendment) Bill, concluding that the Bill may be passed by a simple majority of Parliament, except for Clauses 22 and 39. 

These clauses, the Court held, require a special majority unless amended as proposed. If the amendments recommended by the Court are adopted, Clauses 22 and 39, too, could be passed by a simple majority.

Both rulings were formally communicated to Parliament this morning, clearing the way for debate and passage of the two Bills. (Newswire)

The post Supreme Court clears Suppression of Terrorist Financing Bill appeared first on Newswire.

Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne, on Thursday (09) endorsed the certificate on the Social Security Contribution Levy (Amendment) Bill. 

The Second Reading debate of the Social Security Contribution Levy (Amendment) Bill was held April 07, and the Bill was passed following its Third Reading with amendments.

The objective of the Social Security Contribution Levy (Amendment) Bill is to amend the Social Security Contribution Levy Act No. 25 of 2022, mainly to lower the turnover threshold required for registration for the levy and revise certain exemptions relating to motor vehicles.

Accordingly, this Act expands the tax base of the Social Security Contribution Levy by lowering the turnover threshold from Rs. 60 million to Rs. 36 million per annum.

It also introduces new registration requirements and cancellation of registration consistent with the revised threshold and revises exemptions relating to motor vehicles.

Thus, the Social Security Contribution Levy (Amendment) Bill comes into force as the Social Security Contribution Levy (Amendment) Act, No. 10 of 2026. (Newswire)

The post Speaker endorses certificate of Social Security Contribution Levy (Amendment) Bill appeared first on Newswire.

Opposition MP Harshana Rajakaruna has written to Neil Iddawala, Chairman of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC), calling for urgent action over alleged attempts to interfere with evidence in a corruption complaint against Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne and his private secretary Chameera Gallage.

In his letter, Rajakaruna highlights that a complaint was lodged on February 2, 2026, by Parliament’s Deputy Secretary General Chaminda Kularatne, accusing the Speaker and his secretary under the Anti-Corruption Act No. 9 of 2023. 

He notes that Gallage subsequently wrote to the Secretary General of Parliament on February 6, requesting a report on matters connected to the complaint, which Rajakaruna alleges amounts to an attempt to conceal or alter evidence and influence witnesses.

Citing provisions of the Anti-Corruption Act, Rajakaruna urges CIABOC to conduct an immediate investigation into Gallage’s actions and to take lawful measures against him. 

He further requests that the Secretary General of Parliament be instructed not to release any information related to the complaint and to safeguard all records securely.

Copies of the letter have also been sent to the Secretary General of Parliament and the Director General of CIABOC. (Newswire)

The post Speaker’s secretary attempting to conceal evidence: Harshana writes to Bribery Commission appeared first on Newswire.

Speaker of the Parliament of Sri Lanka, Jagath Wickramaratne, has engaged on his maiden visit to India to participate in the 28th Conference of Speakers and Presiding Officers of the Commonwealth in New Delhi. 

According to the Indian High Commission in Colombo, Speaker of India’s Lok Sabha, Om Birla, held a bilateral discussion with Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne on the sidelines of the event.

The discussion focused on further deepening of Parliamentary Exchanges between our two democracies.

Commenting on the meeting, Speaker Om Birla said the discussions highlighted close Parliament-to-Parliament cooperation, including regular exchanges, formation of friendship groups, and collaboration in policy and programme design. 

He further said they discussed deeper engagement in technology-driven parliamentary innovation, including AI-enabled systems, real-time multilingual translation, and capacity building through PRIDE. 

“Just concluded a cordial and engaging exchange with H.E. (Dr.) Jagath Wickramaratne, MP, Speaker of the Parliament of Sri Lanka. Recalled our earlier interactions and the strong, time-tested bonds between India and Sri Lanka, rooted in close friendship, mutual support, and shared democratic traditions. Our discussions highlighted close Parliament-to-Parliament cooperation, including regular exchanges, formation of friendship groups, and collaboration in policy and programme design. We discussed deeper engagement in technology-driven parliamentary innovation, including AI-enabled systems, real-time multilingual translation, and capacity building through PRIDE. Hoped that the strong people-to-people connect, cultural linkages including Bodh Gaya as a shared pilgrimage centre, and continued parliamentary dialogue will further strengthen India–Sri Lanka relations in the years ahead,” he added in a post on ‘X’. (Newswire)

The post Speaker holds bilateral talks in India appeared first on Newswire.

The Parliamentary Secretariat of Sri Lanka has dismissed as false the news reports circulating in the media under the headline “Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne has decided to take strict action regarding a group of employees using drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes within the Parliamentary premises.”

Issuing a statement, the Secretariat stated that the Speaker of the Parliament of Sri Lanka has informed that the news being circulated under the said headline is completely baseless and untrue.

Furthermore, the Secretariat clarified that Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne has never instructed any official of the Parliament of Sri Lanka to take strict action against such groups of employees.

The Secretariat also stressed that reports claiming the Speaker issued such instructions after receiving information that certain employees, including those in the catering division, were secretly using alcohol, drugs, and cigarettes are false.

Accordingly, the Parliamentary Secretariat reiterated that media reports alleging the Speaker blamed parliamentary officials for allowing such situations to develop are entirely baseless and untrue. (Newswire)

The post Parliament Secretariat denies claims of action by Speaker against staff appeared first on Newswire.

Speaker of Parliament Jagath Wickramaratne today (09 Jan) delivered a ruling under Standing Order 27(3), declaring out of order a motion submitted by 31 Members of Parliament to appoint a Select Committee to examine the powers of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC).

The Speaker emphasized that the JSC’s functions constitute the exercise of the People’s judicial power and are protected by constitutional guarantees of judicial independence. 

He noted that Parliament has no authority to supervise or review the JSC’s operations, citing the doctrine of separation of powers enshrined in Articles 3 and 4 of the Constitution.

The ruling stressed that while Parliament holds fiduciary responsibility over public funds, this does not confer hierarchical supremacy over the judiciary. 

Wickramaratne concluded that subjecting the JSC to parliamentary oversight would undermine judicial independence and, therefore, cannot be permitted.

“The appointment of a Select Committee of Parliament to examine matters pertaining to the Judicial Service Commission would be a derogation of the independence of the judiciary and thereby a derogation of the judicial power of the People. I extend my sincere appreciation to all Members of this House for their patient and attentive hearing of this lengthy ruling, which I believe will stand as a landmark in the parliamentary history of Sri Lanka, strengthening our parliamentary tradition and the dignity of this august Assembly,” he said. 

Full statement:

Hon. Members, by the mandate vested on me under Standing Order 27(3) of the Standing Order of Parliament, in determining whether a notice in respect of any motion by a Member of Parliament be included in the Order Book for answer, I hereby make a statement concerning a motion submitted by 31 Members of Parliament including Hon. Sajith Premadasa., Hon. R. M. Ranjith Madduma Bandara, Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Hon. Gayantha Karunathilleka, Hon. Ajith P Perera, Hon. D.V.Chanaka, Hon Dilith Jayaweera, Hon Rishard Bathiudeen,  Hon. Shanakya Rasamanikkam. and Hon. Chamara Sampath Dasanayake. On 21st of November 2025 (hereinafter ‘the Motion’). 

The Motion thus submitted calls for an appointment of a Select Committee of Parliament to examine the powers exercised by the Judicial Service Commission in relation to the appointment, promotion, transfer, dismissal and disciplinary control of judicial officers. 

Given the serious legal and doctrinal issues raised by the Motion and the potential implications therein, I wish to make a statement detailing reasons for my determination under Standing Order 27(3).

At the outset, it needs to be noted that a similar ruling was issued for the first time in Parliamentary history on 20th of June 2001 by the then Speaker of Parliament Hon. Anura Bandaranaike. The Ruling in 2001 concerned an order issued by the Supreme Court restraining the Speaker from appointing a Select Committee of Parliament regarding a motion for the impeachment of the then Chief Justice.  While the factual circumstances evaluated in the 2001 Ruling are not comparable to the facts of the instant occasion, I believe the motion submitted by some of the Honourable Members of Parliament on 21st of November 2025 presents an equally momentous opportunity to reassert the commitment of this House to the doctrine of separation of powers. 

While the 2001 ruling concerned the Speaker’s role in facilitating the appointment of a Parliamentary Select Committee, and raised the issue of whether the judiciary could control such an exercise, the present Motion raises the opposite question: should the Speaker, and by extension Parliament, be permitted to control the judiciary’s powers by creating an oversight mechanism for the Judicial Service Commission (JSC).

Before embarking on answering this question, I wish to outline the contents of the Motion submitted on 21st of November 2025.

The Motion calls for the appointment of a Select Committee of Parliament to inquire into the powers of appointment, promotion, transfer, dismissal and disciplinary control of judicial officers, exercised by the Judicial Service Commission and to compile a report assessing the following issues:

1. The exercise of powers by the JSC in relation to all appointments, promotions, transfers, dismissals and disciplinary control of judicial officers during the period beginning from 1st of January 2025 to present;
2. Whether such appointments, promotions, transfers, dismissal and disciplinary control have been conducted according to the Constitution, principles of natural justice and other such relevant laws or guidelines of the JSC;
3. Whether reasons have been recorded and intimated to the judicial officers concerned within the means of law and without bias;
4. Whether, prior to a decision on the transfer, dismissal, or disciplinary control of judicial officers, discussions with such judicial officers were facilitated;
5. Whether, in making decisions on appointments, promotions, transfers, dismissals, and disciplinary control of judicial officers, the Judicial Service Commission took into account extraneous considerations.
6. If so, the impact of such considerations on judicial independence, the administration of justice, and public confidence in the judiciary.
7. Recommendations for Constitutional and statutory amendments, administrative guidelines, appeal mechanisms to counter irregular appointments, promotion, transfers, dismissal and disciplinary control through the JSC.

A cursory glance over the said objectives of the Motion reveals that the proposed Selected Committee of Parliament is exercising what essentially is an oversight function of the JSC and its operations. By scrutinizing the JSC’s decisions on appointments, promotions, transfers, dismissals, and disciplinary control, the proposed Committee would be intruding into the operational sphere of the judiciary, which is the very essence of an oversight function.

A role of oversight structurally presupposes a hierarchical relationship – a regulator possessing the power to review, direct, or correct the actions of another. This gives rise to two integral questions – what is the nature and character of the mechanism (in this case the JSC) sought to be regulated and is such regulation in compliance with the law and spirit of the Constitution of the Republic?   

In answering the first question, first I would like to refer to the introduction of the JSC by the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution and the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution and its character. 

CHAPTER XV(15) A of the Constitution titled the JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION was first introduced by the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution. The same Chapter was later substituted by the Nineteenth and Twenty First Amendments to the Constitution. As it stands today, Article 111D of the Constitution provides for the establishment of the JSC consisting of the Chief Justice (the Chairman of JSC) and the two most senior Judges of the Supreme Court appointed by the President, subject to the approval of the Constitutional Council. Article 111H sets out the powers of the JSC to include the power to appoint, promote, transfer, exercise disciplinary control and dismiss judicial officers. Article 111K further sets out the JSC’s immunity from legal proceedings and Article 111L explicitly makes interference with the decisions of the JSC an offence. 

From both its composition and its conferred functions, it is my opinion that the operations of the JSC are attributable to and exercise of judicial power of the People as envisioned under Article 4(c) read with Article 3 of the Constitution. 

The JSC forms an integral part of the judicial branch of government and not an administrative body subordinate to either the Executive or the Legislature. Entrusted with authority over appointments, promotion, transfer, disciplinary control, and dismissal of all judicial officers of the Republic, the JSC functions as an institutional extension of the judiciary itself. The JSC’s powers, exercised through the highest judicial leadership i.e. through the Chief Justice, affirm that the Commission’s role is properly attributable to the judicial arm of government. 

By careful consideration of Articles 111D, 111H, 111K, 111L of the Constitution, it is clear that the establishment and functioning of the JSC constitutes a part of the judicial arm of the government and an exercise of the judicial power of the People. 

Additionally, under CHAPTER VII -A tiled The Constitutional Council, Article 41C sets out that no person shall be appointed to the JSC by the President without the approval of the Constitutional Council recommendation. The Chapter further refers to other Commissions whose appointments are made upon the recommendations of the Constitutional Council. Article 41B explicitly refers to a list of such Commissions which are answerable to Parliament. However, the JSC has not been mentioned therein. This omission underscores that the JSC, as an extension of the People’s judicial power, stands independent of the executive and the legislature.

Therefore, in answering the first question—what the Motion seeks to regulate—is an exercise of judicial power of the People. 

Next, the issue for determination is whether Parliament, through a Select Committee, can exercise oversight over the JSC and its operations, namely the exercise of the judicial power of the People. The guiding principle in answering this question is the doctrine of separation of powers.  

The doctrine of separation of powers states that the state’s principal organs (the executive, legislature, and judiciary) are to be constituted as separate and autonomous entities.  One of the earliest and clearest statements of the separation of powers was given by Montesquieu in 1748 (The Spirit of Laws) : When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty… there is no liberty if the powers of judging is not separated from the legislative and executive… there would be an end to everything, if the same man or the same body… were to exercise those three powers. 

The doctrine of separation of powers is enshrined in the Constitution of Sri Lanka vis-à-vis Article 3 and Article 4. Article 3 of the Constitution provides “In the Republic of Sri Lanka sovereignty is in the People and is inalienable. Sovereignty includes the powers of government, fundamental rights and the franchise.” The manner in exercising such power is expressed in Article 4:

“The Sovereignty of the People shall be exercised and enjoyed in the following manner: –

1. the legislative power of the People shall be exercised by Parliament, consisting of elected representatives of the People and by the People at a Referendum;
2. the executive power of the People, including the defence of Sri Lanka, shall be exercised by the President of the Republic elected by the People;
3. the judicial power of the People shall be exercised by Parliament through courts, tribunals and institutions created and established, or recognized, by the Constitution, or created and established by law, except in regard to matters relating to the privileges, immunities and powers of Parliament and of its Members, wherein the judicial power of the People may be exercised directly by Parliament according to law;
4. the fundamental rights which are by the Constitution declared and recognized shall be respected, secured and advanced by all the organs of government and shall not be abridged, restricted or denied, save in the manner and to the extent hereinafter provided; and
5. the franchise shall be exercisable at the election of the President of the Republic and of the Members of Parliament and at every Referendum by every citizen who has attained the age of eighteen years and who, being qualified to be an elector as hereinafter provided, has his name entered in the register of electors.

To that end, the Supreme Court in Jathika Sevaka Sangamaya v Sri Lanka Hadabima Authority (2015) 1 SLR 258 spoke of the doctrine of separation of powers as follows:

“There are three distinct functions involved in a Government of a State -legislative executive and judicial functions. Those three organs are constitutionally of equal status and also independent from one another. One organ should not control or interfere with the powers and functions of another branch of Government and should not be in a position to dominate the others.
The Doctrine of separation of powers is enshrined in Article 4 read with Article 3 of the Constitution – Article 3 is linked with article 4.”

In the same Judgment, the Supreme Court refers to Article 116 of the Constitution as a recognition of the “independence of the judiciary, certain safeguards which enable judicial officers to perform their powers and functions without any interference”. Speaking on Article 111C, the Judgment goes onto quote “Article 111 C of the Constitution is a manifest intention to ensure the judiciary is free from interferences whatsoever.”

At this juncture, it is pertinent to pause and reflect on the framing of Article 4(c) of the Constitution which provides “the judicial power of the People shall be exercised by Parliament through courts…” In fact, the Motion refers to the responsibility of Parliament to allocate funds from the Consolidated Fund to facilitate the operations of the JSC and the ensuing requirement of ensuring the transparent and accountable expenditure of such an allocation. 

However, it is my opinion that Parliament’s custody of the public purse, entrusted by the People in trust, confers fiduciary responsibility but not hierarchical supremacy, and cannot justify an automatic encroachment on the constitutional separation of powers and form a derogation of the independence of the judiciary. In fact, the Constitution provides only one permissible avenue for review of JSC decisions – resorting to the Fundamental Rights Jurisdiction under Article 126 of the Constitution read with Article 17 of the Constitution.

Moreover, in the House of Commons, it is a well-established constitutional convention that judicial independence prohibits any form of political accountability being imposed on judges. Consistent with the constitutional principles set out in Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice, and grounded in the doctrines of judicial independence and the separation of powers, the legal position is unequivocal: the establishment of such a committee would be unconstitutional and contrary to long-standing parliamentary practice. Erskine May, further states that judicial independence is a fundamental constitutional convention, and parliamentary actions must not “impair judicial independence.”

Placing the judiciary before a Select Committee — a political body — would subject judges or judicial administrators to political scrutiny, thereby undermining the essential independence required of the judicial branch

Erskine May states that the courts and Parliament are “separate and independent” organs of government. Neither House may exercise judicial power, nor may they review, supervise, or control judicial acts. The administration of the judiciary — including appointments, discipline, case assignment, and internal governance — is an inherent part of judicial independence.

Therefore, it abundantly shows that the parliamentary scrutiny into administrative decisions of the judiciary would breach the constitutional separation of powers.

This proposition is further supported by authoritative English decisions; notably, M v Home Office [1994] 1 AC 377 and Duport Steels Ltd v Sirs [1980] 1 WLR 142, which unequivocally reaffirm the doctrine of separation of powers and the constitutional imperative of preserving judicial independence.

Even in the Sri Lankan Constitution, unlike in the United Kingdom, the principle of the separation of powers is expressly and unequivocally recognised as a foundational constitutional doctrine. The Apex Courts of Sri Lanka have repeatedly affirmed this position. In Premachandra v Major Montague Jayawickrama (1994) 2 SLR 90, the Supreme Court underscored that the separation of powers embodied in Articles 3 and 4 constitutes a fundamental feature of the Constitution, and that neither the Executive nor the Legislature may usurp or encroach upon judicial power; Chief Justice Sharvananda emphasised that each organ of government must function strictly “within the bounds set by the Constitution,” rendering any form of parliamentary supervision over judicial administration unconstitutional. Similarly, in Visuvalingam v Liyanage (1983) 1 SLR 203, although the issue concerned contempt, the Court reiterated that judicial independence is an indispensable constitutional postulate and that the judiciary cannot be subjected to pressure, influence, or control by the other branches of government. This principle was reaffirmed in many reported cases , where the Supreme Court held that the judiciary must remain entirely free from any form of investigation or interference by the Executive or Legislature, noting that the protection of judicial independence is essential for safeguarding the sovereignty of the People. This is further reinforced by in many reported Supreme Court Cases , where the Court held that the JSC enjoys exclusive constitutional authority over judicial administration.

The following  passages of   recently  concluded  Judicial Officers’ Tax Case (CA Writ 35/2023-36/2023, & 73/2023 C.A minutes 27th November 2023) explain that sovereignty belongs to the people under the Constitution, and its exercise through the Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary must operate within a strict separation of powers—ensuring strong legislative and executive authority while preserving judicial independence—so that each branch uses its powers responsibly, without overreach, for the wellbeing of society.

It is stated that –  

“……………………The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and as per Article 3 of the Constitution, sovereignty lies in the people and is inalienable. Sovereignty includes the government; thus, the power of the people is exercised through the three pillars of the government, namely the executive, legislature and the judiciary. Therefore, the judiciary is only one such pillar of the government which exercises the judicial power of the people. …………………….

………………………………The regulation of taxation by laws passed and implemented by the three pillars of government serves the best interest of society. However, the efficacy of fulfilling such a task lies in the principle of separation of powers enshrined within the Constitution. As the learned DSG states in his submission “the legislature has the purse, the executive has its sword, and the judiciary has the public confidence”: though akin to a slogan, it aptly describes the separation of powers within a government system. Accordingly, the three branches of the government are to operate independently from one another, and there shall be no interference of one in the other. There shall only be checks and balances between these three branches. This principle, which is provided by the Constitution, safeguards the independence of the judiciary in a delicate balance. 

……………………………………Contemporary society is constantly changing, with new social upheavals and challenges arising every day. To effectively solve these problems and guarantee positive change, those in power must be equipped with the necessary tools and authority to do so. This means that the legislative and executive power of the government must have adequate and far-reaching powers, free from unnecessary obstruction or interference. It is important to remember that these powers are given to them by the people, and with this trust comes the expectation that they will use their powers responsibly with a sense of justice and for the betterment of people……………………….

…………………………… the independence of the judiciary should be preserved without any obstruction, hindrance or interference. The judiciary plays a vital role in ensuring that justice is served fairly and impartially, and any interference with their independence could compromise the integrity of the judicial system. A delicate balance ought to be struck between both these points for the adequate functioning of society.”

While exercising their powers, all three branches of the government may experience a sense of satisfaction, but they must also remember that using their powers excessively or unjustly is not acceptable. The saying, “It is excellent to have a giant’s strength; but it is tyrannous to use it like a giant” ( William Shakespeare, in his play Measure for Measure, Act 2, Scene 2.) serves as a reminder that those in power must be mindful of the impact of their actions on society and use their powers for the greater good, rather than for personal gain or to oppress others………………”.  (@ -94-96 pp)

Building on the jurisprudence outlined above, it is evident that the independence of the judiciary is firmly established and safeguarded under the doctrine of separation of powers. Accordingly, the JSC, whose functions reflect the exercise of the People’s judicial power, enjoys the same protection against encroachment by the legislature or the executive.

Having examined the JSC as an extension of the People’s judicial power and the limits imposed by the doctrine of separation of powers for the protection of such exercise, I now turn to my duty under Standing Order 27(3). 

The Motion before me seeks a resolution of Parliament to appoint a Select Committee to oversee the JSC’s functionality and operations. Under Standing Orders 27(3), I, as Speaker, hold the discretion to decide whether such a Motion should be placed on the Order Paper and to rule it either in order or out of order. In exercising this discretion, I must determine whether the objectives of the Motion align with the Constitution of the Republic.

In my opinion, any motion in the exercise of the legislative power that encroaches on the exercise of the People’s judicial power threatening the doctrine of separation, is an affront to the Constitution of the Republic.

As such, for the following reasons, I find the Motion submitted on 21st of November 2025 to appoint a Select Committee of Parliament to examine the powers of the Judicial Service Commission in relation to the appointment, promotion, transfer, dismissal, and disciplinary control of judicial officers out of order:

1. The functions and purpose of the Judicial Service Commission embody the exercise of the People’s judicial power, and therefore enjoy the constitutional protection of judicial independence; and
2. The Constitution does not permit Parliament to encroach upon that power by exercising oversight over the Judicial Service Commission’s operations; this prohibition is reinforced by the doctrine of separation of powers enshrined in Article 3, read with Article 4, of the Constitution; and
3. The custody of the public purse, entrusted to Parliament by the People in trust, confers fiduciary responsibility but not hierarchical supremacy, and cannot justify encroachment upon the constitutional separation of powers; and
4. The Constitution does not provide the Parliament the authority to inquire into, supervise, or review the functions or decisions of the Judicial Service Commission.

The appointment of a Select Committee of Parliament to examine matters pertaining to the Judicial Service Commission would be a derogation of the independence of the judiciary and thereby a derogation of the judicial power of the People. I extend my sincere appreciation to all Hon Members of this House for their patient and attentive hearing of this lengthy ruling, which I believe will stand as a landmark in the parliamentary history of Sri Lanka, strengthening our parliamentary tradition and the dignity of this august Assembly. (Newswire)

The post Speaker rejects motion to examine powers of Judicial Service Commission appeared first on Newswire.

Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne on Wednesday (17) endorsed the certificate on the Bills titled Social Security Contribution Levy (Amendment), the Betting and Gaming Levy (Amendment), and the Strategic Development Projects (Amendment).

According to a Parliament statement, the primary purpose of the Social Security Contribution Levy (Amendment) Bill was to amend the Social Security Contribution Levy Act, No. 25 of 2022. The Bill was presented to Parliament on October 09, and the Bill was passed in Parliament on December 05.

The Betting and Gaming Levy (Amendment) Bill, duly passed on December 05, aimed to amend Section 2 of the principal enactment. Accordingly, amendments to the Bill aimed to limit the gross collection of ten per centum to have been applicable only for the time period from April 1, 2023, to October 1, 2025, increase the gross collection levy from persons carrying on a business of bookmaker or business of gambling to eighteen per centum from October 1, 2025, and increase the casino entrance levy from persons who are citizens of Sri Lanka to United States Dollars one hundred.

The Strategic Development Projects (Amendment) Bill, presented to Parliament on November 14, was passed in Parliament on December 05 for the purpose of amending the Strategic Development Projects Act, No. 14 of 2008. Accordingly, said amendments included reducing the maximum tax holiday period from twenty-five years to ten years and mandating a new process for project identification, the Board of Investment (BOI) identifying a project and referring it to the Ministry of Finance for a mandatory ex-ante cost-benefit analysis before any tax holiday or concession was granted, establishing new requirements for ex-post monitoring by the BOI, including the authority to impose administrative penalties or restrict or revoke exemptions for non-compliance with key performance indicators, requiring tax returns to be filed, and mandating the Ministry of Finance to publish an annual report on tax expenditures related to these projects.

Accordingly, the said three Bills will come into force as the Social Security Contribution Levy (Amendment) Act, No. 24 of 2025, the Betting and Gaming Levy (Amendment) Act, No. 25 of 2025, and the Strategic Development Projects (Amendment) Act, No. 26 of 2025. (Newswire)

The post Speaker endorses 03 Bills, includes Betting & Gaming Levy Amendment appeared first on Newswire.

Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne has warned Parliamentarians to refrain from making inappropriate remarks and accusations targeting fellow members.

The Speaker made this statement during the presentation of announcements to Members at the commencement of today’s parliamentary session. 

Addressing the Parliament, he further said that such behaviour has been noted frequently during Parliament proceedings in the recent past.

Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne pointed out that this was disrespectful to the House and regrettable. 

Urging MPs to refrain from using unparliamentary language during proceedings, the Speaker requested the MPs to extend their support in this regard. (Newswire)

The post Speaker calls out growing use of unparliamentary language, warns MPs appeared first on Newswire.

This week, a high-level delegation from the Parliament of Sri Lanka, led by Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne, is visiting the United Kingdom. 

The four-day visit, facilitated by the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and funded by UK International Development, focuses on institutional frameworks and practices that promote transparency, accountability, and effective legislation.

The delegation includes Speaker of Parliament Jagath Wickramaratne, Minister of Health and Mass Media Nalinda Jayatissa, Minister of Justice and National Integration Harshana Nanayakkara, Minister of Women and Child Affairs Saroja Savithri Paulraj, and Assistant Secretary General of Parliament Hansa Abeyratne.

The delegation met with Seema Malhotra MP, Minister for the Indo-Pacific at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office in London.

Taking to ‘X’, UK High Commissioner to Sri Lanka, Andrew Patrick, said he was accompanying the ministerial delegation for exchanges to deepen cooperation and strengthen governance between the two nations. 

The British High Commissioner further said that the tour was conducted as part of efforts to strengthen the Parliamentary partnership between the countries. (Newswire)

The post Top Ministers in London : What are they doing? appeared first on Newswire.

Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) General Secretary Ranjith Madduma Bandara said in Parliament today that the opposition will be forced to bring forth a No-Confidence Motion against Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne.

Addressing the Parliament today, MP Ranjith Madduma Bandara said that if the Speaker does not uphold democracy and the rights of the Opposition, then they will be forced to submit a No-Confidence Motion against him. 

He pointed out that this was the first time in the history of Sri Lanka’s Parliament that a Speaker has rejected a No-Confidence Motion. 

MP Ranjith Madduma Banadara made the remarks in response to the Speaker’s decision on the No Confidence Motion submitted against the Deputy Minister of Defence, Aruna Jayasekara.

Addressing the Parliament today, Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne said that there is no provision in the Constitution for a No-Confidence Motion against a Deputy Minister, and as such, the motion is not in order and cannot be accepted in its present form. 

A group of Opposition MPs submitted the No-Confidence Motion against Deputy Defence Minister Aruna Jayasekara to the Speaker in August this year.

The No-Confidence Motion was submitted, citing serious concerns over his alleged involvement and conflict of interest in the investigations into the 2019 Easter Sunday terror attacks. (Newswire)

The post SJB warns of NCM against Speaker appeared first on Newswire.

A tense situation arose in Parliament today when Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa raised concerns over the Speaker’s decision on the No Confidence Motion (NCM) submitted against the Deputy Minister of Defence, Aruna Jayasekara.

Addressing the Parliament today, Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne said that there is no provision in the Constitution for a No-Confidence Motion against a Deputy Minister, and as such, the motion is not in order and cannot be accepted in its present form. 

Commenting on the decision, Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa noted that parliamentary conventions such as those outlined in Erskine May and Kaul & Shakdher mention that while Standing Orders do not explicitly address the status of a Deputy Minister as part of the Executive, this silence does not imply that a no-confidence motion cannot be brought forward.

He pointed out that even though there is no specific mention of such motions against ministers in the Standing Orders, the absence of reference should not be interpreted as a prohibition.

“According to Article 46(1) of the Constitution, a Deputy Minister exercises executive powers, and therefore, bringing a no-confidence motion is a recognized practice under the Westminster tradition. Furthermore, under Article 45(3), there is constitutional scope to present such a motion within a broader legal framework,” MP Premadasa emphasized.

He further said that if the Speaker refers to established parliamentary precedents, it would be possible to bring a no-confidence motion against a Deputy Minister. 

MP Premadasa urged that the Attorney General’s advice and reports provided by the secretarial staff be tabled and utilized, and that the Opposition be granted the opportunity to present its position to Parliament. 

A group of Opposition MPs submitted the No-Confidence Motion against Deputy Defence Minister Aruna Jayasekara to the Speaker in August this year, citing serious concerns over his alleged involvement and conflict of interest in the investigations into the 2019 Easter Sunday terror attacks.

The motion raises alarm over Jayasekara’s role as the Commander of the Security Force (East) during key incidents linked to the Easter attacks, such as the Vavunathivu police killings and the Sainthamaruthu explosion. (Newswire)

The post Erskine May cited as Sajith challenges Speaker on No-Confidence Motion appeared first on Newswire.

Speaker of the Parliament of Sri Lanka, Jagath Wickramaratne, has informed that the opposition’s motion of No-Confidence against the Deputy Minister of Defence, Aruna Jayasekara, is not in order and cannot be accepted in its present form. 

Addressing the Parliament today, Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne said under Articles 42, 43 and 44 of the Constitution, collective and individual ministerial responsibility lies with the Cabinet of Ministers. 

He pointed out that a Deputy Minister, though a Member of Parliament, is not a member of the Cabinet and does not bear direct constitutional responsibility to this House in the present context. 

The Speaker further said that there is no provision in the Constitution for a No-Confidence Motion against a Deputy Minister.

“If such a motion is to be accepted today, it would establish an undesirable precedent contrary to constitutional and parliamentary precedents. Having taken into consideration all these facts, I wish to inform this House that the motion of no-confidence against the Deputy Minister of Defence is not in order and cannot be accepted in its present form,” he concluded. 

A group of Opposition MPs submitted the No-Confidence Motion against Deputy Defence Minister Aruna Jayasekara to the Speaker in August this year. 

The Opposition submitted the No-Confidence Motion against the Deputy Minister of Defence, citing serious concerns over his alleged involvement and conflict of interest in the investigations into the 2019 Easter Sunday terror attacks.

The motion raises alarm over Jayasekara’s role as the Commander of the Security Force (East) during key incidents linked to the Easter attacks, such as the Vavunathivu police killings and the Sainthamaruthu explosion. 

The full statement of Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne;

I wish to make this announcement in furtherance of the announcement made by me on 19.08.2025 regarding the Motion titled the ‘No-Confidence Motion’, submitted by a group of 32 Members of Parliament in the Opposition including the Hon. Leader of the Opposition in Parliament, on 12.08.2025 against Hon. Major General (Rtd.) Aruna Jayasekera, M.P., Deputy Minister of Defence.

I have carefully considered this motion in light of the provisions of the Constitution, the Standing Orders of the Parliament and established parliamentary practices and precedents. 

I also studied the traditions and procedures followed in other Commonwealth and democratic legislations such as UK House of Commons, India’s Lok Sabha and Australia’s House of Representatives in this regard.

Under Articles 42, 43 and 44 of the Constitution of Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, collective and individual ministerial responsibility lies with the Cabinet of Ministers. A Deputy Minister, though a Member of Parliament, is not a member of the Cabinet and does not bear direct constitutional responsibility to this House in the present context. 

The Constitution clearly recognizes that no-confidence motions may be brought against the Government as a whole, while the precedent recognizes no-confidence motions against the Prime Minister, or an individual Cabinet Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in Parliament. But, there is no provision for such a motion against a Deputy Minister.

Therefore, if such a motion is to be accepted today, it would establish an undesirable precedent contrary to constitutional and parliamentary precedents. 

Accordingly, having taken into consideration of all these facts, I wish to inform this House that the motion of no-confidence against the Deputy Minister of Defence is not in order and cannot be accepted in its present form. (Newswire)

The post Speaker reveals why NCM against Deputy Minister rejected appeared first on Newswire.

Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne today endorsed the certificate on the Companies (Amendment) Bill, which was passed in Parliament with amendments in July this year.

This bill was presented for first reading in Parliament on June 5, 2025, by the Minister of Trade, Commerce, Food Security, and Cooperative Development, Wasantha Samarasinghe. 

Following the Speaker’s endorsement, the Companies (Amendment) Bill is now enacted as the Companies (Amendment) Act No. 12 of 2025.

The amended Act introduces several provisions, including allowing the incorporation of a company with a single shareholder, extending the notice period for the public when changing a company’s name to 20 working days, prohibiting the issuance of bearer shares or bearer share warrants, requiring notification to the company regarding the issuance of bearer shares or bearer share warrants and mandating the disclosure of the bearer’s details to the company registrar within 60 days, requiring companies to divide shares within 20 days from the date of incorporation.

Further, the Act introduces new provisions related to “beneficial ownership of shares”, including disclosure of beneficial ownership information by secretaries and directors to the registrar, maintenance of records by the Registrar, making such information available to the public, mandating companies or the registrar to provide details of beneficial owners to government authorities, introducing new definitions for “beneficial ownership” and “effective control”.

Additionally, the amendments provide for empowering the registrar to extend the deadlines for companies to submit certain documents and information, allowing deregistered companies to re-register within a specified time and reclaim properties previously held by the government, expanding the scope of referring disputes to the Company Disputes Board for resolution, amending the procedure for the removal of company directors, allowing the Minister of Finance to provide allowances to certain officers of the Department of the Registrar of Companies, Setting procedures for general penalties, and providing an annex to correct errors in the Sinhala, Tamil, and English texts of the principal enactment. (Newswire)

The post Speaker endorses certificate on Companies (Amendment) Bill appeared first on Newswire.