Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne has certified the Chief of Defence Staff (Repeal) Bill, paving the way for the legislation to come into force as the Chief of Defence Staff (Repeal) Act, No. 22 of 2026.

According to a statement issued by Parliament, the Speaker endorsed the Bill on September 22 after it completed the legislative process in Parliament.

The Bill was first presented to Parliament on August 4, 2026 and its Second Reading debate was held on September 9. It was subsequently passed without a vote.

The legislation was introduced to repeal the Chief of Defence Staff Act, No. 35 of 2009, which established the office of the Chief of Defence Staff.

The 2009 Act had created the position to carry out duties including the coordination of activities between the Armed Forces and the Ministry of Defence in line with the security and administrative requirements of the time.

With the repeal of the 2009 law, the office of the Chief of Defence Staff will also cease to exist.

Parliament said that, upon the Act coming into operation, all movable and immovable property belonging to the Office of the Chief of Defence Staff will be transferred to the Ministry assigned the subject of Defence.

Accordingly, the Bill has now become law as the Chief of Defence Staff (Repeal) Act, No. 22 of 2026. (Newswire)

The post Speaker certifies Bill repealing Chief of Defence Staff position appeared first on Newswire.

The Speaker of Parliament has received the Supreme Court’s determination on the 22nd Constitutional Amendment, the Speaker’s Office confirmed in a statement today.

It is reported that the confidential opinion of the Court will be formally announced in Parliament tomorrow (22). The determination was conveyed to the Speaker following the conclusion of hearings earlier this month.

The 22nd Constitutional Amendment Bill and the Judicial Reforms Bill were presented to Parliament on August 18 by Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara. 

In response, more than 65 petitions were filed challenging the Bills, which were taken up for hearing on September 1 before a five‑judge bench presided over by the Chief Justice.

The hearings concluded on September 2, with the bench stating that its determination on the constitutionality of the Bills would be referred to the Speaker.

Meanwhile, the Parliamentary Business Committee has scheduled the debate on the 22nd Constitutional Amendment Bill for September 24 and 25, setting the stage for a crucial discussion on the proposed reforms. (Newswire)

The post Speaker receives Supreme Court determination on 22nd Amendment appeared first on Newswire.

Opposition parliamentarian Dayasiri Jayasekara has formally appealed to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA), urging intervention in what he describes as a serious breach of parliamentary privilege and impartiality within the Sri Lankan legislature.

In a letter addressed to CPA President Refilwe Mtshweni‑Tsipane and Secretary General Stephen Twigg, MP Jayasekara highlighted concerns over the refusal of Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne to allow him to raise a Privilege Question in Parliament on September 10, 2026. 

The matter related to an ongoing Bribery Commission (CIABOC) investigation reportedly involving the Speaker’s official functions.

Jayasekara argued that the Speaker’s decision to personally study the complaint, rather than refer it to the Committee on Ethics and Privileges, violated the principle of nemo judex in causa sua — that no one should judge a case in which they are personally involved. He stressed that the refusal undermined procedural fairness and institutional impartiality.

The MP further alleged that his freedom of speech was curtailed when the Speaker stopped him from raising the issue during a parliamentary debate. He cited protections under the Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act No. 21 of 1953, which guarantees Members’ rights to speak and debate freely within the House.

Jayasekara, a long‑serving legislator with nearly two decades in Parliament and a senior figure in the Samagi Jana Sandanaya (SJS) coalition, requested the CPA to:

• Take note of the matter as one concerning parliamentary democracy and Members’ rights.
• Assess whether the circumstances align with accepted principles of fairness and impartiality.
• Encourage referral of the Privilege Question to the Committee on Ethics and Privileges.
• Support independent review of the Speaker’s refusal to permit the question.
• Take further action within its mandate to safeguard parliamentary democracy and freedom of speech.

Jayasekara stressed that the issue strikes at the heart of parliamentary accountability, as it concerns the ability of elected Members to raise privilege matters involving the very officer presiding over the House. (Newswire)

The post Dayasiri appeals to Commonwealth Parliamentary Association over Speaker’s conduct appeared first on Newswire.

The Supreme Court has issued its determination on the Bill titled Chartered Institute of Media Professionals of Sri Lanka, which was challenged under Article 121(1) of the Constitution.

Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne informed Parliament today (08) that the Court found several clauses inconsistent with constitutional provisions.

• Clause 3(1) was deemed vague and inconsistent with Articles 12(1) and 14(1)(g), requiring passage by a special majority under Article 84(2). The inconsistency would be removed if the clause is deleted.
• Clause 4(o) was found inconsistent with Articles 12(1) and 14(1)(g), and may only be passed with a special majority unless amended as proposed by the Court.
• Clause 5(4b) was ruled inconsistent with Article 12(1) and requires a special majority under Article 84(2). The inconsistency would be removed if amended as directed.
• The remaining clauses of the Bill were determined not to be inconsistent with the Constitution.

The ruling clears the way for parliamentary debate, subject to the amendments and special majority requirements outlined by the Court. (Newswire)

The post Speaker announces Supreme Court determination on Media Professionals’ Bill appeared first on Newswire.

A damning special audit report has revealed sweeping financial irregularities in the operations of Sri Lanka’s Parliament during the Eighth and Ninth sessions, exposing unchecked privileges, outdated regulations, and millions in questionable expenditure.

The Auditor General’s Department found that Parliament continues to operate under the Parliamentary Staff Act of 1953, last amended in 1959, bypassing the Public Financial Management Act No. 44 of 2024, which governs all other budgetary entities to ensure transparency.

Unlimited Fuel Privileges

• Speaker: Consumed an average of 3,994 litres per month in 2023 and 6,122 litres per month in 2024, marking increases of 66% and 155% respectively. Fuel expenditure reached Rs. 19.37 million in 2023 and Rs. 26.05 million in 2024.
• Deputy Speaker: Received 21,299 litres of fuel worth Rs. 8.55 million for a private vehicle in 2023–2024, in addition to three official vehicles. These vehicles themselves exceeded allocations by 6,980 litres in 2023 and 1,515 litres in 2024.
• Chairman of Committees: Allocated three official vehicles with unlimited fuel, despite no formal entitlement.
• Secretary-General: Used 15,063 litres of fuel worth Rs. 6.07 million between 2022–2024, averaging 2,300 litres more annually than a Ministry Secretary, the highest comparable category.

Salary Irregularities

The Secretary-General’s salary, constitutionally required to be fixed by Parliament under Article 65(2), was last approved in 2004 at Rs. 274,920. Since then, it has increased by around 800% without fresh parliamentary sanction, creating a significant charge on the Consolidated Fund.

Transport and Employee Benefits

• Parliament spent Rs. 335.66 million since 2016 on a bus service for employees, operating without a written agreement with the Sri Lanka Transport Board.
• A further Rs. 5.89 million was spent on drivers and conductors from mid‑2021.
• The average cost per travel pass rose from Rs. 27,662 in 2016 to over Rs. 95,000 in 2023.

Foreign Travel Expenditure

• Rs. 208.9 million was spent between 2016–2024 to send 451 MPs overseas.
• Rs. 56.9 million funded 115 staff members for 83 foreign trips.
• No requirement exists for MPs or staff to submit reports on outcomes of these trips.

Other Irregularities

• Discrepancy between 25,103 books in the library register and 34,000 books claimed online.
• Concessionary vehicle permits worth Rs. 10.8 million granted to three employees before completing six years of service.
• 159 approved posts remained vacant as of December 2025 without review.

The Auditor General attributed these issues to Parliament’s reliance on outdated legislation and recommended urgent reforms, including aligning with the Public Financial Management Act, tightening controls on fuel and vehicle privileges, and securing formal approval for the Secretary-General’s salary. (Newswire)

The post Audit reveals former Speaker used over 6,000 litres of fuel a month in 2024 appeared first on Newswire.

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.

A group of Opposition members has formally requested an urgent adjournment debate under Standing Order 19(1) in Parliament, citing the government’s responsibility for the deaths and injuries caused by the recent unrest at Negombo Prison.

In a letter dated 07 July 2026 addressed to the Speaker, Opposition MPs referenced the Hansard Report of 30 November 2020, which affirmed the state’s duty to ensure the safety of prisoners and detainees under custody.

The letter highlighted that clashes inside Negombo Prison on 05 and 06 July resulted in 26 deaths, including prison officials and inmates, and more than 100 injuries. 

The Opposition argued that the government bears full responsibility for the tragedy and urged immediate parliamentary attention. 

“Accordingly, considering the gravity and urgent nature of this matter, we kindly request you to grant an opportunity for an urgent adjournment debate under Standing Order 19(1) to bring this matter to the urgent attention of Parliament,” the Opposition requested. (Newswire)

The post Opposition calls for urgent parliamentary debate on Negombo Prison unrest appeared first on Newswire.

Opposition Members of Parliament today handed over a letter to Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne requesting an urgent debate on structural issues in the judicial sector, citing mounting case delays and vacancies in superior courts.

The letter, submitted under Standing Order 19(1), calls for Parliament to intervene in what MPs described as “a matter of urgent public importance.” 

They stressed that the failure to fill judicial vacancies has created serious practical problems in the efficient and independent functioning of institutions.

According to the Opposition, the backlog of cases and prolonged trial delays have now reached crisis levels, undermining public confidence in the justice system and evolving into a wider social issue.

The MPs urged that Parliament immediately debate the vacancies, case delays, and the structural and administrative challenges behind them, and take steps to implement swift and effective solutions. (Newswire)

The post Opposition MPs hand letter to Speaker seeking urgent debate on judicial vacancies 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.

A group of opposition Members of Parliament has written to the Speaker of Parliament, who also serves as Chairperson of the Constitutional Council, raising concern over prolonged vacancies in Sri Lanka’s higher judiciary.

In their letter, the MPs draw attention to four unfilled vacancies in the Supreme Court and four in the Court of Appeal, stating that the positions have remained vacant for an extended period. They argue that the delay in filling these posts appears inconsistent with Article 107(1) of the Constitution, which provides for the appointment of judges of the superior courts by the President, subject to the approval of the Constitutional Council.

The MPs have requested the Constitutional Council to ascertain whether the Chief Justice has formally notified either the Council or the President regarding the existence of these vacancies. If such notification has not been made, they urge that the reasons for the omission be examined.

The letter states that the continued existence of vacancies in the superior courts may discourage eligible senior judges from expecting timely consideration for promotion and could create uncertainty regarding judicial career progression. It also raises concerns about equal protection under the law, as guaranteed by the Constitution, in the context of delayed appointments.

Beyond individual implications, the MPs warn that the vacancies are affecting the efficient administration of justice, increasing the workload on serving judges, and potentially undermining public confidence in the judicial system. They further reference Article 4(c) of the Constitution, which places responsibility on the state to ensure the effective exercise of judicial power through properly constituted courts. 

In their appeal, the opposition MPs have requested the Speaker, in his dual capacity, to bring the matter before the Constitutional Council and the President for urgent consideration. They also call for the issue to be highlighted in Parliament as a constitutional concern requiring prompt action. (Newswire)

The post Opposition MPs write to Speaker over prolonged judicial vacancies in top courts 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.

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.

A proposal prepared under the instructions of Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa, requesting a debate to condemn alleged interference by the Executive in the Judiciary, was today handed over to Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne.

The proposal was handed over by Opposition Chief Organizer Gayantha Karunathilaka, together with Deputy Organizers J.C. Alawathuwala and Ajith P. Perera, and other Opposition MPs.

The proposal calls for an urgent adjournment debate in Parliament, citing remarks made by President Anura Kumara Dissanayake at the May Day rally on May 1, where he suggested that a court ruling expected on May 25 should be “celebrated.”

Opposition legislators argue that such statements risk undermining judicial independence and public confidence in the administration of justice.

The resolution outlines the following key points:

• This Parliament unequivocally condemns any statement or conduct by members of the Executive that undermines, interferes with, or appears to interfere with the independence of the judiciary;
• This Parliament affirms its unwavering commitment to uphold the Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the doctrine of separation of powers;
• This Parliament calls upon all public office holders, including the Executive, to exercise restraint in public statements relating to pending judicial proceedings, so as to avoid any perception of influence or impropriety;
• This Parliament urges His Excellency the President to clarify his remarks and reaffirm his commitment to respecting the independence and integrity of the judiciary;
• This Parliament resolves to take all necessary steps within its constitutional mandate to safeguard the independence of the judiciary and preserve public confidence in the administration of justice.

The Opposition emphasized that the debate is essential to protect the integrity of the judiciary and to ensure that executive actions do not erode democratic governance. (Newswire)

The post Opposition seeks debate on Executive interference in Judiciary 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 Jagath Wickramaratne announced in Parliament today (21 Jan) that he endorsed the certificate on the Colombo Port City Economic Commission (Amendment) Bill on Tuesday, 20 January 2026.  

This Bill was presented to Parliament on 05 December 2025 and was taken up for debate and passed in Parliament on 07 January 2026. 

The Colombo Port City Economic Commission (Amendment) Bill has been brought with the objective of amending the principal enactment, the Colombo Port City Economic Commission Act, No. 11 of 2021, with a view to strengthening regulatory oversight with respect to offshore banking activities and tax compliance, and further amending and clarifying the criteria relating to Businesses of Strategic Importance (BSI).

Through this Amendment Act, a more stringent supervision mechanism is introduced for financial activities within the Zone, particularly by granting the Central Bank of Sri Lanka the authority to regulate and supervise offshore banking activities in conformity with international standards. 

Furthermore, the Act aligns the economic framework of the Port City with global banking requirements and national financial stability objectives.

Accordingly, the Colombo Port City Economic Commission (Amendment) Bill comes into operation as the Colombo Port City Economic Commission (Amendment) Act, No. 01 of 2026. (Newswire)

The post Colombo Port City Economic Commission (Amendment) Bill endorsed by Speaker 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.