SC has the power to remove the 117 members if convicted for intentional violation of the constitution or for moral turpitude
 # The speaker and any parliamentary committee are subject to Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Sri Lanka’s constitution # The Sri Lankan constitution is different to the Indian and British Constitutions. # Further the Supreme Court has the power to investigate the truth of the facts in the Impeachment resolution. It has power to remove the 117 members if convicted for intentional violation of the constitution or for moral turpitude. Every news media, civic association and the Bar association alleged that the impeachment resolution to remove the Chief Justice has been introduced with malice and bad faith. According to the Constitution if a resolution presented to the Parliament based on untrue facts and has misled the Parliament, the Supreme Court has power to punish the Members who signed such a resolution. They can be removed from Parliament if the violation is amounting to an “Intentional violation of the Constitution”. The President can be removed for “intentional violation of the Constitution” or “for violation of involving moral turpitude” by the Supreme Court and that can be applied to the members of parliament as well. The meaning of “Moral turpitude” has broader meaning that includes “ Corruption, misleading the parliament, false statement, false allegation to remove the Chief justice or any act that can be considered by the civilized world as misleading to the public. Courts have held that moral turpitude “refers generally to conduct that shocks the public conscience as being inherently base, vile, or depraved, contrary to the rules of morality and the duties owed between man and man, either one’s fellow man or society in general.” One common definition applied by the courts is “an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity.” Some cases define an act of moral turpitude as one which “grievously offends the moral code of mankind.” Further, the Supreme Court can order to testify before the court every Member of the Parliament who signed the resolution to determine the constitutionality of such a resolution. If the Supreme Court finds that the resolution was signed without reading it or signed in blank, then it is apparent that the resolution is presented to the Parliament with bad faith and can be considered as “intentional violation of the Constitution” or a act that can be considered as breach of “moral turpitude”. Constitution states as follows: 38 (2) (a) Any Member of Parliament may, by a writing addressed to the Speaker, give notice of a resolution alleging that the President is permanently incapable of discharging the functions of his office by reason of mental or physical infirmity or that the President has been guilty of- (i) intentional violation of the Constitution, (ii) treason, (iii) bribery, (iv) misconduct or corruption involving the abuse of the powers of his office, or (v) any offence under any law, involving moral turpitude, and setting out full particulars of the allegation or allegations made and seeking an inquiry and report thereon by the Supreme Court. |
| Conclusion: More >> |
