• Petitioners raise concerns over judicial powers, Executive authority, FR

The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday (20) commenced hearing 25 petitions challenging the Government’s proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill, with petitioners raising concerns over judicial independence, Executive powers and potential violations of Fundamental Rights (FR).

The petitions were taken up before a three-Judge bench comprising Chief Justice (CJ) Preethi Padman Surasena and Justices Achala Wengappuli and Sampath B. Abayakoon.

Appearing for the Attorney General (AG), Additional Solicitor General and President’s Counsel (PC) Nerin Pulle informed the Court that 25 petitions had been filed against the proposed legislation and the relevant information had been reported to the Speaker’s Office.

Attorney Hijaz Hezbollah, appearing for several petitioners, argued that the Bill would undermine judicial authority by restricting Magistrates’ powers to release suspects without the AG’s consent. He also challenged Clauses 27 and 28, which deal with detention orders, arguing that they would permit detention without a court order.

He further claimed that Clause 59 would grant the President excessive powers, potentially violating Articles 3 and 4 of the Constitution. He also raised concerns over provisions extending arrest powers to the Armed Forces and Coast Guard, warning that these could facilitate abuses of authority by uniformed officers.

In addition, Hezbollah said the Bill would empower the Defence Ministry Secretary to restrict citizens from entering certain areas. He requested the Court to determine that the disputed provisions required approval by a two-thirds majority in Parliament and at a referendum before enactment.

Meanwhile, M U M Ali Sabry PC, appearing for jurist and politician Prof G L Peiris, acknowledged the importance of national security but stressed that measures taken to protect the State should not violate the rights of innocent citizens.

Referring to the Vavunathivu Police killings before the 2019 Easter Sunday attacks, he said two Tamil youths had initially been arrested and detained over the incident, but subsequent investigations linked the killings to a group associated with the Easter attacks.

Ali Sabry argued that the proposed legislation could allow a person to be detained for one year and subsequently remanded for a further year, raising concerns over its consistency with the Bail Act.

He also challenged Clause 51, saying it could empower the Executive to prohibit meetings, press conferences and other activities deemed threats to national security. He argued that such decisions should rest with Magistrates rather than the Executive.

Pulle told the Court the Government did not intend to curtail freedom of expression through the Bill.

M.A. Sumanthiran PC, appearing for several other petitioners, argued that the Bill continued the existing Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act (PTA) and could further restrict personal liberty and judicial authority.

The SC hearing is continuing.