Sitting of Wednesday, 24 September 2025
Source: Hansard PDF (parliament.lk) ↗ ·No. 1759815459006615 ·English daily/uncorrected Hansard
Order of business
Speeches load per item. Summaries shown here are AI-generated and labelled; verbatim text is on each speech page.
- 1 Opening Opening and Chair Change 1 speeches
- 2 Papers Papers Presented: University Reports and Government Documents 4 speeches
- 3 Petitions Petitions Presented 3 speeches
- 4 Oral question Oral Question 10 (125/2025): Sri Lanka Tea Board Investments 15 speeches
- 5 Oral question Oral Questions 6, and continuing questions on Seeds, Tanks, and Immigration 8 speeches
- 6 Oral question Questions under Standing Order 27(2): Executive Presidency and SVAT 29 speeches
- 7 Procedural Privilege Question and Matter of Privilege 13 speeches
- 8 Debate Debate: Penal Code (Amendment) Bill - Second Reading 168 speeches
- The Hon. Deputy Speaker procedural
- The Hon. (Mrs.) Saroja Savithri Paulraj - Minister of Women and Child Affairs JJB
AI summary Moving the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill for Second Reading on behalf of the Minister of Justice and National Integration, the Minister said the amendments seek to prohibit all forms of violence against children, particularly corporal punishment, in line with constitutional obligations, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and Sri Lanka’s 2024 international commitment to end corporal punishment. She cited rising and recurring complaints under Section 308A and examples of abuse in homes, schools and care settings, stating that physical, psychological, verbal or sexual violence used for “correction” or discipline would be criminalized except in good-faith emergencies. She said the reforms would strengthen child protection, align policy with international guidance, and be supported by a multi-sectoral mechanism under the National Child Protection Authority, while emphasizing that legal change must be accompanied by cultural, educational and institutional change.
- The Hon. Deputy Speaker procedural
- The Hon. Ajith P. Perera SJB
AI summary Ajith P. Perera supported the prohibition of corporal punishment but argued that the Bill’s clause criminalizing non-physical acts likely to cause “humiliation however light” is overly broad and undefined. He warned that teachers, parents, prefects and school authorities could face police complaints, arrests or employment consequences for ordinary disciplinary remarks or actions. He proposed a Committee Stage amendment introducing a bona fide or good-faith protection, so courts and police can distinguish legitimate discipline from harmful conduct.
- The Hon. Deputy Speaker procedural
- The Hon. Bimal Rathnayake - Minister of Transport, Highways, Ports and Civil Aviation and Leader of the House of Parliament JJB
AI summary Bimal Rathnayake supported the Bill as a modern response to physical, emotional, and public forms of harm against children, arguing that corporal punishment and humiliating language by adults can cause lasting psychological damage. He rejected fear-based objections, cited international moves away from corporal punishment, and said the measure should be aligned with forthcoming Code of Criminal Procedure amendments before passage. He also highlighted cyberbullying and public shaming as contemporary harms the law must address, and proposed that MPs view the film Taare Zameen Par to better understand children’s experiences.
- The Hon. Deputy Speaker procedural
- The Hon. Sunil Watagala, Attorney-at-Law - Deputy Minister of Public Security and Parliamentary Affairs JJB
AI summary Pointing to Penal Code Section 74 and Article 11 of the Constitution, Sunil Watagala argued that existing law already protects good-faith acts done to prevent harm while prohibiting torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. He therefore opposed Ajith P. Perera’s proposed insertion of the term “bona fide” in the Bill, stating that further specification of bona fide or mala fide intent was unnecessary.
Parliamentary Procedure Full speech → - The Hon. Deputy Speaker procedural
- The Hon. Gamagedara Dissanayake - Deputy Minister of Buddhasasana, Religious and Cultural Affairs JJB
AI summary Gamagedara Dissanayake clarified matters concerning the Central Cultural Fund, stating that over Rs. 8,000 million had been spent between 2016 and 2019 without Board approval. He said a three-member committee chaired by retired Supreme Court Justice Pradeep Jayatilake was appointed on 07 July to investigate, and that its report was nearing completion. He indicated that preliminary findings suggested fundamental breaches of the Central Cultural Fund Act and that further discussion could follow once the report is released.
- The Hon. Deputy Speaker procedural
- The Hon. Ajith P. Perera SJB
AI summary Ajith P. Perera questioned a Deputy Minister’s public statement to Dinamina on 22 September claiming that a government-appointed committee had already uncovered fraud. He asked how such a conclusion could be known before the committee’s report was released, arguing that the statement was either procedurally improper or baseless. He demanded that the report be tabled or the allegation withdrawn.
Corruption & Governance Reform Full speech → - The Hon. Deputy Speaker procedural
- The Hon. (Dr.) Pathmanathan Sathiyalingam ITAK
AI summary Welcoming the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill, he supported the new provisions on corporal and non-physical punishment of children but requested clearer definitions, including for “likely to cause humiliation,” and correction of discrepancies between the Tamil and English texts, particularly on the fine in Section 314A. He raised concerns that road-repair funds allocated for local authority roads in Vavuniya are being channelled through Government Agents without adequate consultation with local bodies, and requested coordination to ensure priority roads are selected. He also urged the Government to provide the newly upgraded Vavuniya Municipal Council with the required cadre and infrastructure, strengthen the district’s limited fire service, and reform local authority cadre structures to improve service delivery.
- The Hon. Deputy Speaker procedural
- The Hon. Arun Hemachandra - Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Employment and Tourism JJB
AI summary Acting Minister Arun Hemachandra supported the amendment as a necessary reform to protect children from physical and psychological violence, particularly in schools and early childhood settings. He rejected concerns that teachers and parents could be unfairly victimized, stating that prosecutions would still require evidence and be guided by existing law and precedent, including Sri Lankan and international case law on corporal punishment. He cited research on the harms of corporal punishment and humiliation, and linked the reform to wider efforts to create a safer environment for children, including action against drug abuse and related criminal activity.
- The Hon. Deputy Speaker procedural
- The Hon. (Dr.) Hiniduma Sunil Senevi - Minister of Buddhasasana, Religious and Cultural Affairs JJB
AI summary Minister Hiniduma Sunil Senevi supported the amendments proposed by Hon. Saroja Savitri Paulraj, describing them as a progressive step in protecting children from physical and psychological punishment. He linked the Bill to education reforms, arguing that parents, teachers, wardens, prefects and student leaders must move away from punitive discipline and be trained in constructive approaches. Citing examples from cinema and the situation of children with disabilities, he stressed that childhood trauma can have long-term social and psychological consequences, and said the law should reflect a genuine commitment to safeguarding children.
- The Hon. Deputy Speaker procedural
- The Hon. Chanaka Madugoda SLPP
AI summary Hon. Chanaka Madugoda expressed support for the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill, stating that modern society should reject the punishment of children and condemning violence, psychological harassment and cruelty against them. He cautioned that, alongside introducing new legal protections, Parliament should consider the wider social structures and consequences connected to implementing the Bill.
- The Hon. Chanaka Madugoda SLPP
AI summary Hon. Chanaka Madugoda argued that schools and families need lawful space for firm, measured corrective discipline, while stressing that abuse and harmful conduct, including incidents linked to tuition classes, must be taken seriously. He then raised constituency concerns, urging the Government to strengthen the Cinnamon Development Department’s regional and field capacity to support cinnamon growers in Galle. He also requested the Ministers of Sports and Education to resolve the job security, classification, assessment, and career progression issues faced by school sports coaches.
- The Hon. Deputy Speaker procedural
- The Hon. Sunil Watagala, Attorney-at-Law JJB
AI summary Hon. Sunil Watagala raised a point of order objecting to another Member repeatedly referring to an alleged “NPP tuition teacher” in relation to an incident under investigation. He stated that a B-report had been filed, the case was pending before Aluthkade Magistrate’s Court No. 6, and the matter had been referred to the Attorney General for advice under Section 308 of the Penal Code (Amendment) Act, No. 22 of 1995 and Section 33 of the Evidence Ordinance. He argued that making political allegations while legal advice was still pending set a wrong precedent.
Parliamentary Procedure Full speech → - The Hon. Deputy Speaker procedural
- Hon. (Dr.) Ramanathan Archchuna Independent Group 17 - Jaffna
AI summary Hon. (Dr.) Ramanathan Archchuna raised a point of order questioning the Chair’s handling of a prior intervention, arguing that the current Speaker was allowed to speak for two and a half minutes despite a no-confidence motion being brought against him. He asked for clarification under the Standing Orders on whether a Member may speak when a party is mentioned, and alleged unequal treatment between the Government and Opposition in applying procedural rules.
Parliamentary Procedure Full speech → - The Hon. Deputy Speaker procedural
- The Hon. (Prof.) Sena Nanayakkara JJB
AI summary Hon. (Prof.) Sena Nanayakkara supported the Bill to amend Section 308 of the Penal Code, arguing that physical punishment and abuse of children have serious long-term social consequences and must be criminalized even when framed as correction. Citing UN findings, incidents of abuse in care and education settings, and government policy commitments on child protection, he said violence against children is normalized in society and institutions. He urged that the amendment be viewed as a progressive measure to protect children’s welfare and future development.
- The Hon. Mujibur Rahuman SJB
AI summary Mujibur Rahuman raised concerns about delays in accountability over the death of child Hamdi Fasleen after alleged medical negligence, noting that CID findings had been sent to the Attorney General six months earlier but no indictment or ministerial report had followed. He criticised the Government’s new merit-based judicial promotion and transfer process, alleging lack of transparency, bypassing of seniority, incomplete Judicial Service Commission participation, and no appeal mechanism, and proposed a special parliamentary committee to examine the matter. He also cited a Dehiwala Magistrate’s Court case involving alleged forcible acquisition of property, questioning why police had not acted on judicial arrest orders allegedly because a Government Minister was involved, and alleged unequal application of the law and interference with judicial postings.
- The Hon. Sunil Rajapaksha JJB
AI summary Hon. Sunil Rajapaksha supported the Penal Code amendment to protect children from violence, punishment, and abuse, framing it as part of a broader move toward a more humane society. He argued that children should be guided through supportive environments rather than punishment, and said protections must apply not only in schools but also at home and in wider society. Citing recent district-level child abuse figures, including cases involving relatives and close associates, he urged universal and continuous protection for children.
- The Hon. (Mrs.) Hemali Weerasekara – Deputy Chairperson of Committees
AI summary Hon. Hemali Weerasekara supported the amendment banning physical punishment of children, arguing that violence in homes, schools, care institutions, and other settings causes lasting harm rather than discipline. She said the law should strengthen penalties and remove legal space for physical violence, especially to protect vulnerable children in detention homes, certified schools, children’s homes, and those exposed to narcotics or lacking parental care. She also emphasized that legal reform must be accompanied by a cultural shift toward discipline based on love, patience, compassion, and respect.
- The Hon. Sajith Premadasa – Leader of the Opposition
AI summary Hon. Sajith Premadasa supported protecting children from violence and cruelty, while arguing that children’s rights currently in the non-justiciable Directive Principles of State Policy should be made enforceable by incorporating them into the fundamental rights chapter of the Constitution. He said child protection must include economic and social rights such as nutrition, health, education, and freedom from poverty, questioning whether the IMF programme has improved conditions for vulnerable children and advocating a “humane middle path” between market and statist approaches. He also called for humane guidance and discipline without degrading punishment, and raised concern about narcotics entering schools, including through digital means, as a threat to children’s rights.
- The Hon. Presiding Member procedural
- The Hon. (Mrs.) Nilusha Lakmali Gamage, Attorney-at-Law JJB
AI summary Hon. (Mrs.) Nilusha Lakmali Gamage proposed that Hon. Thilanka U. Gamage take the Chair during the proceedings.
Parliamentary Procedure Full speech → - The Hon. Nishantha Perera JJB
AI summary Hon. Nishantha Perera formally seconded the motion before the House. The question was then put and agreed to, after which the Hon. Deputy Speaker left the Chair and Hon. Thilanka U. Gamage presided.
Parliamentary Procedure Full speech → - The Hon. (Mrs.) M.A.C.S. Chathuri Gangani JJB
AI summary Hon. (Mrs.) M.A.C.S. Chathuri Gangani supported the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill as a measure to strengthen child protection in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 11 of the Constitution, and existing Sri Lankan child welfare frameworks. She cited survey data and National Child Protection Authority complaints to argue that corporal punishment, physical abuse, and psychological abuse remain widespread in homes, schools, and institutions, and noted prior Education Ministry circulars prohibiting corporal punishment in schools. She emphasized that the Bill is not aimed at any single group, including teachers, but seeks to ensure children are disciplined without violence and to protect their rights. She also linked child safety to broader concerns over narcotics and said legal reform should be accompanied by creating a safer social environment for children.
- The Hon. Amirthanathan Adaikkalanathan DTNA
AI summary Paid tribute to Rev. Fr. Luke Regini of Amalanmary Church, Mantai, and then objected to the proposed Mannar wind power project, citing prolonged public protests and the President’s directive to proceed with implementation. He argued that development should not come at the cost of local people’s lives and warned that resistance to the project would continue. He also welcomed the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill, linking it to rising child abuse and calling for stronger measures to protect children amid social and technological vulnerabilities.
- The Hon. U.P. Abeywickrama, Attorney-at-Law JJB
AI summary Hon. U.P. Abeywickrama supported the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill as part of the Government’s wider legal reform agenda and said the colonial-era Penal Code must be modernized in line with contemporary child rights standards. He urged Members to engage substantively because courts may use Hansard to interpret legislative intent, and rejected Opposition claims that the Bill would victimize teachers or elders. He also denied allegations of Government interference in the judiciary, police, or independent commissions, contrasting the current administration’s approach with past instances of politicization, and called for support for the reform process.
- The Hon. R.M. Ranjith Madduma Bandara SJB
AI summary R.M. Ranjith Madduma Bandara welcomed legal measures on children’s rights and welfare, while stressing that social justice and protection from abuse must accompany them. He questioned whether the Government was strengthening or worsening the justice system, citing concerns over recent arrests, remand, and bail practices. Referring specifically to the arrest and court production of former President Ranil Wickremesinghe, he argued that bail should have been considered in line with accepted principles where there is no risk of absconding or interfering with evidence, and called for consistency to maintain public confidence in the rule of law.
- The Hon. Presiding Member procedural
- The Hon. R.M. Ranjith Madduma Bandara SJB
AI summary Hon. R.M. Ranjith Madduma Bandara called for improved salaries, housing, and working conditions for judicial officers, noting that District Court judges earn about Rs. 450,000. He opposed political influence over appointments, promotions, and transfers in the judiciary, and accused the government of interfering with judicial independence.
- The Hon. Presiding Member procedural
- The Hon. (Dr.) Namal Sudarshana - Deputy Minister of Women and Child Affairs JJB
AI summary Deputy Minister Namal Sudarshana supported the Penal Code amendment as a timely measure to strengthen child protection, linking it to Sri Lanka’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Sustainable Development Goals, and the 2024 Bogota commitment to end corporal punishment. He outlined Ministry initiatives including a multi-sectoral mechanism to prevent child abuse, regulatory updates, livelihood support for vulnerable children, transport for child victims attending court, and increased preschool meal funding. He noted that concerns extend beyond schools to homes and institutions, including religious organizations, and referenced past legal measures and NCPA recommendations aimed at abolishing corporal punishment and addressing violence against children.
- The Hon. Presiding Member procedural
- The Hon. Chithral Fernando, Attorney-at-Law SJB
AI summary Chithral Fernando welcomed the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill to prevent corporal punishment of children, arguing that it aligns with both international trends and Sri Lanka’s own historical traditions. He emphasized that poverty, overcrowded schools, drug abuse, and social distress contribute to teachers using corporal punishment, and warned that banning it without supporting teachers may not be effective. Citing international research, including examples from Benin, Cameroon, Ethiopia, and South Africa, he argued that legal bans often fail without implementation measures, and tabled the research paper for the House and Library. He urged the Government to consider teacher training and education as part of a constructive approach before or alongside legislation.
- The Hon. Presiding Member procedural
- The Hon. (Mrs.) Saroja Savithri Paulraj JJB
AI summary Hon. (Mrs.) Saroja Savithri Paulraj moved a procedural motion that Hon. (Prof.) Sena Nanayakkara take the Chair. The motion was agreed to, after which Hon. Thilanka U. Gamage vacated the Chair and Hon. (Prof.) Sena Nanayakkara assumed it.
Parliamentary Procedure Full speech → - The Hon. (Mrs.) Anushka Thilakarathne, Attorney-at-Law JJB
AI summary Hon. Anushka Thilakarathne supported the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill, stating that its main provisions prohibit cruel and degrading physical or non-physical punishment of children and increase penalties for intentional and grievous harm against children. She rejected claims that the Bill targets teachers, arguing that it applies to any adult, caregiver, institution or parent and is centred on the best interests of children. Citing reported child offence and National Child Protection Authority complaint statistics, she urged Members to distinguish guidance from humiliation and to propose constructive amendments across party lines.
- The Hon. Presiding Member procedural
- The Hon. (Mrs.) Chamindranee Kiriella, Attorney-at-Law SJB
AI summary Chamindranee Kiriella welcomed the Penal Code Amendment Bill prohibiting corporal and humiliating punishment of children, noting Opposition support and citing NCPA complaint figures, including that about 20% of 2025 complaints relate to cruel punishment. She said the Bill appropriately responds to changing social expectations and serious abuses, but raised concerns about ambiguity over “good faith” actions and the undefined scope of non-physical humiliating punishment by parents, teachers, guardians or prefects. She urged clearer drafting, consideration of an Opposition amendment, faster handling of child protection complaints, and training for teachers in positive non-violent discipline methods.
- The Hon. Presiding Member procedural
- The Hon. (Dr.) Kaushalya Ariyarathne JJB
AI summary Dr. Kaushalya Ariyarathne supported the amendment prohibiting corporal punishment, arguing that psychological humiliation must be included because Article 11 of the Constitution, the CRC, international guidance, and Sri Lankan case law recognize degrading treatment beyond physical harm. She rejected proposals for exceptions such as “loving punishment,” stating that such language would create ambiguity and undermine the legislative objective. She emphasized that discipline can be maintained through non-violent methods and linked childhood violence to broader social violence, torture, and normalized humiliation in society.
- The Hon. Presiding Member procedural
- The Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Attorney-at-Law SJB
AI summary Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara welcomed the Bill but urged that concerns of both students and teachers be considered, while rejecting corporal punishment. He raised broader concerns about judicial independence, alleging political influence in judicial appointments, transfers, promotions and post-retirement appointments, and cited Article 110(2) of the Constitution in questioning whether required presidential consent existed for certain former judges taking government posts. He referred to past and current examples, including the removal of Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake, appointments involving former Judicial Service Officers’ Association office-bearers, and the treatment of Justice Bandula Karunarathna, and called for adherence to the rule of law and constitutional safeguards.
- The Hon. (Dr.) Nalinda Jayatissa JJB
AI summary Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa asked Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara to clarify the specific content of the Mount Lavinia court order concerning Minister Wasantha Samarasinghe. The intervention sought factual clarification on a legal matter referenced in the debate.
Justice & Human Rights Full speech → - The Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Attorney-at-Law SJB
AI summary The Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara stated that there was a court order, indicating that the matter under discussion was subject to judicial direction. No further details or specific requests were provided in the excerpt.
Justice & Human Rights Full speech → - The Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Attorney-at-Law SJB
AI summary Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara alleged procedural irregularities in recent judicial and Bribery Commission actions, including the handling of warrants and the arrest of Dr. Rajitha Senaratne during court vacation. He also questioned judicial promotion and posting processes, claiming senior judges were bypassed and asking whether the system was being “fixed.” He requested that the Chief Justice examine the matter and that a committee be appointed to inquire, warning that if unresolved the issues would be raised with international legal and governance bodies.
- The Hon. (Dr.) Kaushalya Ariyarathne JJB
AI summary Hon. (Dr.) Kaushalya Ariyarathne raised a point of order objecting to serious allegations made against the Judicial Service Commission and the Chief Justice. She asked whether the Member was taking responsibility for the claim that the Chief Justice was politically partisan and engaged in bench-fixing, stressing the gravity of such an accusation.
Parliamentary Procedure Full speech → - The Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Attorney-at-Law SJB
AI summary Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara denied having alleged that the Chief Justice engages in bench-fixing or fixes benches. He stated that a fellow Member had misunderstood or misrepresented his earlier remarks.
- The Hon. (Dr.) Ramanathan Archchuna Independent Group 17 - Jaffna
AI summary Raised a point of order under Standing Order 92(2), questioning why an unlisted Government Member was permitted to raise a point of order. He alleged inconsistent application of procedure, referring to a previous instance in which he was ordered out for raising a point of order.
Parliamentary Procedure Full speech → - The Hon. Presiding Member procedural
- The Hon. Mayilvaganam Jegatheeswaran JJB
AI summary Hon. Mayilvaganam Jegatheeswaran supported the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill, arguing that physical and psychological punishment of children has long-term effects on their development and can contribute to later harmful behaviour. He highlighted risks faced by children without parental care, children in homes, schools, daycare centres and labour settings, and those affected by social, caste or religious bias. He urged Parliament to support the amendment unanimously and emphasized adults’ responsibility to protect children at every stage of childhood.
- The Hon. Mahinda Jayasinghe - Deputy Minister of Labour JJB
AI summary Deputy Minister Mahinda Jayasinghe raised a point of order denying claims circulated on YouTube and attributed to Dayasiri Jayasekara that the Mount Lavinia Court had ordered the arrest of Minister Wasantha Samarasinghe and Mayor Ranjan Jayalal. He stated that the court had only required them to record statements before 22 August, which they had done, and challenged anyone alleging otherwise to table the court order. He also referred to Labour Department letters which, he said, confirmed that a trade union faction had been fraudulently registered through misuse of political power by former Minister John Seneviratne, and demanded withdrawal of the alleged false statement.
- The Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Attorney-at-Law SJB
AI summary Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara’s recorded contribution consists only of addressing the Presiding Member, with no substantive remarks, proposals, questions, or policy arguments included in the provided text.
Parliamentary Procedure Full speech → - The Hon. Presiding Member procedural
- The Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Attorney-at-Law SJB
AI summary Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara referred to an order issued by Ms. Nilupuli de Silva of the Fort Magistrate’s Court on 18 December of the previous year. He stated that he would table the order in Parliament the following Friday.
Parliamentary Procedure Full speech → - The Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Attorney-at-Law SJB
AI summary Dayasiri Jayasekara stated that he had a relevant document but could not table it immediately, following an exchange in which part of his remarks was expunged by the Chair. He assured the Presiding Member that he would table the document on Friday morning so it could be discussed thereafter.
Parliamentary Procedure Full speech → - The Hon. Mahinda Jayasinghe - Deputy Minister of Labour JJB
AI summary Mahinda Jayasinghe objected to an opposing Member’s claim about a court order, stating that no such order existed. He invoked professional and legal ethics, criticizing the Member for raising the matter when unable to provide a substantive answer.
Parliamentary Procedure Full speech → - The Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Attorney-at-Law SJB
AI summary Dayasiri Jayasekara requested the Presiding Member to stop the discussion or exchange, stating that he would bring the relevant matter and table it on Friday.
Parliamentary Procedure Full speech → - The Hon. Presiding Member procedural
- The Hon. (Dr.) Nalinda Jayatissa JJB
AI summary Hon. (Dr.) Nalinda Jayatissa rejected a claim that the Mount Lavinia Magistrate had been transferred because of an order to arrest Wasantha Samarasinghe and others. He stated that no such Magistrate’s Court order existed and demanded that the order be produced or the claim withdrawn. He emphasized that judicial transfers are handled by the Judicial Service Commission and that the Government does not interfere in the judicial process.
- The Hon. (Dr.) Nalinda Jayatissa JJB
AI summary The Hon. (Dr.) Nalinda Jayatissa challenged claims about a Magistrate’s transfer, stating that judicial transfers are handled by the Judicial Service Commission and not by the Government. He requested that the relevant arrest order be tabled or that the allegation be withdrawn, arguing that otherwise it amounts to an accusation of Government interference with the judiciary.
- The Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Attorney-at-Law SJB
AI summary Dayasiri Jayasekara stated that he had already indicated he would table the relevant document or matter on the following Friday.
Parliamentary Procedure Full speech → - The Hon. Presiding Member procedural
- The Hon. Mahinda Jayasinghe JJB
AI summary Mahinda Jayasinghe asked what action Dayasiri Jayasekara would take if the judgment being discussed could not be presented on Friday, and requested that he inform both the members concerned and the House.
Parliamentary Procedure Full speech → - The Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Attorney-at-Law SJB
AI summary Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara stated that the document in question exists and undertook to present it on Friday morning. He rejected any suggestion of uncertainty, emphasizing that he would definitely table it.
Parliamentary Procedure Full speech → - The Hon. Presiding Member procedural
- The Hon. Mayilvaganam Jegatheeswaran JJB
AI summary Mayilvaganam Jegatheeswaran urged parents and teachers to avoid physical punishment and instead support children with affection, attention to their interests, and fulfilment of legitimate needs. He emphasized the importance of child psychology in understanding children’s emotional, cognitive, and behavioural development, arguing that proper guidance and care are essential for producing mentally healthy and responsible citizens.
- The Hon. Presiding Member procedural
- The Hon. Mayilvaganam Jegatheeswaran JJB
AI summary Hon. Mayilvaganam Jegatheeswaran responded to an Opposition MP’s allegation that rural road rehabilitation funds in the Chettikulam Pradeshiya Sabha area were allocated arbitrarily and with bias. He stated that the Rs. 200 million allocation was distributed equally across divisions, with an additional amount for Chettikulam, and alleged that the Pradeshiya Sabha Chairman was refusing to use the funds for political reasons. He said road rehabilitation would continue into the following year and that allocations would be made without discrimination or political bias.
Infrastructure Full speech → - The Hon. Presiding Member procedural
- The Hon. (Dr.) Nalinda Jayatissa JJB
AI summary The Hon. Nalinda Jayatissa argued that an allegation linking a Judicial Service Commission transfer to a specific incident should not remain in public circulation without proof. He urged the Member who made the claim either to substantiate it immediately or withdraw it until evidence is presented, stressing the need for responsibility because the matter concerns the judiciary.
- The Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Attorney-at-Law SJB
AI summary Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara said he would table, either that day or by Friday, the order or directive he claimed related to the arrest of Mahinda Jayasinghe and others. He also questioned the transfer of a Magistrate who, he said, had not requested a transfer and had no stated reason for it, arguing that such transfers raise concerns of injustice and possible improper motives.
- The Hon. (Dr.) Nalinda Jayatissa JJB
AI summary Asked the Presiding Member to confirm whether he had stated that a Magistrate was transferred because she ordered the arrest of Minister Wasantha Samarasinghe. The intervention sought clarification on the stated reason for the judicial transfer in the context of the parliamentary exchange.
- The Hon. (Dr.) Nalinda Jayatissa JJB
AI summary Hon. (Dr.) Nalinda Jayatissa challenged a claim recorded in Hansard that a Magistrate was transferred because of an order to arrest Minister Wasantha Samarasinghe. He demanded that the person concerned immediately clarify on the microphone if that was not the position.
Justice & Human Rights Full speech → - The Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Attorney-at-Law SJB
AI summary Dayasiri Jayasekara began his address with a formal salutation to the Presiding Member. No substantive policy argument, proposal, question, or legislative matter is included in the provided excerpt.
Parliamentary Procedure Full speech → - The Hon. Presiding Member procedural
- The Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Attorney-at-Law SJB
AI summary Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara declined to repeat a point in the debate, stating that the relevant person had already said it himself.
Parliamentary Procedure Full speech → - The Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Attorney-at-Law SJB
AI summary Dayasiri Jayasekara briefly stated that a person was transferred for the reason previously mentioned by another member. He indicated that he did not need to elaborate further on the matter.
Parliamentary Procedure Full speech → - The Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Attorney-at-Law SJB
AI summary Dayasiri Jayasekara stated that he would not withdraw his earlier remarks and maintained that what he had said remained unchanged. He invited others to verify the matter, offering no further explanation or clarification.
Parliamentary Procedure Full speech → - The Hon. (Dr.) Nalinda Jayatissa JJB
AI summary Hon. (Dr.) Nalinda Jayatissa requested the member to repeat or clarify what had just been said. The intervention appears procedural and does not raise a substantive policy issue, proposal, or legislative argument.
Parliamentary Procedure Full speech → - The Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Attorney-at-Law SJB
AI summary Dayasiri Jayasekara declined to repeat his previous point, indicating he did not wish to restate it further.
Parliamentary Procedure Full speech → - The Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Attorney-at-Law SJB
AI summary Dayasiri Jayasekara stated that he would not withdraw his earlier remarks alleging misconduct in the judicial sector, including claims about case-fixing and lawyers intervening in cases. He maintained that these issues had already been raised and stood by his position.
Justice & Human Rights Full speech → - The Hon. Presiding Member procedural
- The Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Attorney-at-Law SJB
AI summary Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara stated that he would produce a document in response to a challenge from Hon. Mahinda Jayasinghe and said he had no reason to withdraw his earlier statement. He also challenged Jayasinghe to clarify or retract a previous allegation that India was behind the Easter attacks.
Parliamentary Procedure Full speech → - The Hon. Presiding Member procedural
- The Hon. (Dr.) Nalinda Jayatissa JJB
AI summary Asked the relevant Member to repeat and clarify a prior allegation that the Mount Lavinia Magistrate had been transferred because she ordered the arrest of Minister Wasantha Samarasinghe. The intervention sought to place the statement on record and challenge its accuracy in the parliamentary exchange.
Parliamentary Procedure Full speech → - The Hon. (Dr.) Nalinda Jayatissa JJB
AI summary Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa briefly questioned why the addressee was “backing away,” indicating a challenge or objection in the course of debate. No specific policy, legislation, or proposal was elaborated in the excerpt.
Parliamentary Procedure Full speech → - The Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Attorney-at-Law SJB
AI summary Dayasiri Jayasekara briefly interjected to clarify or correct a point being made in the debate. No substantive argument, proposal, or policy position is developed in the provided excerpt.
Parliamentary Procedure Full speech → - The Hon. (Dr.) Nalinda Jayatissa JJB
AI summary Hon. (Dr.) Nalinda Jayatissa requested the Presiding Member to provide another Member with the microphone so that the Member could speak or respond.
Parliamentary Procedure Full speech → - An Hon. Member
AI summary An Hon. Member made a procedural request for another member to be given the microphone. No substantive policy issue, proposal, or question was raised.
Parliamentary Procedure Full speech → - The Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Attorney-at-Law SJB
AI summary Dayasiri Jayasekara challenged the Chief Government Whip to clarify the Government’s position on allegations that India was behind the Easter Sunday attacks. He demanded that the statement be made to both sides of the House, noting that the Chief Government Whip had earlier claimed India was involved.
- The Hon. (Dr.) Nalinda Jayatissa JJB
AI summary Objected to a response being repeated and pressed the respondent to provide the answer immediately, indicating dissatisfaction with the prior reply.
Parliamentary Procedure Full speech → - The Hon. Presiding Member procedural
- The Hon. (Dr.) Nalinda Jayatissa JJB
AI summary Hon. (Dr.) Nalinda Jayatissa challenged another member to state explicitly whether a Magistrate had been transferred for the reason previously alleged. He argued that the member was retreating from an earlier position and questioned why they would not repeat the claim if they were not afraid.
Justice & Human Rights Full speech → - The Hon. Presiding Member procedural
- The Hon. (Dr.) Nalinda Jayatissa JJB
AI summary Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa stated that the opposing member had made allegations insulting the judiciary and the Judicial Service Commission. He challenged the member to substantiate those claims.
Justice & Human Rights Full speech → - The Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Attorney-at-Law SJB
AI summary Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara stated that he would provide the information or response once it is obtained.
Parliamentary Procedure Full speech → - The Hon. Presiding Member procedural
- The Hon. (Dr.) Ramanathan Archchuna Independent Group 17 - Jaffna
AI summary Requested the Presiding Member to quieten the House.
Parliamentary Procedure Full speech → - The Hon. Presiding Member procedural
- The Hon. (Dr.) Ramanathan Archchuna Independent Group 17 - Jaffna
AI summary Hon. (Dr.) Ramanathan Archchuna alleged selective and politically influenced action by the police and State institutions, citing delays in recording statements in a case he filed in Jaffna and contrasting this with police action taken against him. He referred to his interdiction and salary payments, claiming he returned the money to the Ministry on advice from Hon. Nalinda Jayatissa, while alleging the Attorney-General had misrepresented the matter in court. He also raised concerns about medical record-keeping and patient care, and claimed that transfers and appointments in the North were being used against him because of his criticisms.
- The Hon. Presiding Member procedural
- The Hon. (Dr.) Ramanathan Archchuna Independent Group 17 - Jaffna
AI summary Hon. (Dr.) Ramanathan Archchuna criticised the proposed Bill to remove corporal punishment, arguing that some form of corporal punishment should be retained and even suggesting an amendment allowing Government MPs to administer it. He linked this argument to concerns over alleged drug trafficking through port containers, questioning why authorities and media focus on cases against him while, in his view, not adequately investigating who is responsible for containers allegedly carrying “ice.” He also referred to statements by other MPs and said cases against him arose from his public comments on alleged hospital frauds.
- The Hon. Presiding Member procedural
- The Hon. (Dr.) Ramanathan Archchuna Independent Group 17 - Jaffna
AI summary Dr. Ramanathan Archchuna objected to what he viewed as unequal application of parliamentary procedure, arguing that points of order should not be allowed unless the relevant Standing Order is cited. He referred to a prior incident in which he was removed for failing to cite a Standing Order and urged the Chair to apply the same rule consistently to other Members, including “159,” while maintaining the dignity of the Chair.
Parliamentary Procedure Full speech → - The Hon. Presiding Member procedural
- The Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Attorney-at-Law SJB
AI summary No substantive speech content is provided beyond the salutation to the Presiding Member. There are no arguments, proposals, questions, or references to legislation or policy to summarize.
Justice & Human Rights Full speech → - The Hon. Presiding Member procedural
- The Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Attorney-at-Law SJB
AI summary Dayasiri Jayasekara tabled the B 29984/24 case report from the Mount Lavinia Magistrate’s Court, citing orders dated 6 September 2024 and 26 November 2024 directing police to immediately arrest and produce the suspects. He alleged that, despite these orders, the suspects were not arrested or produced and continued to avoid giving statements while police merely engaged with them. He urged that Parliament not be misled and invited Members to verify the tabled “B” report.
- The Hon. Presiding Member procedural
- The Hon. Mahinda Jayasinghe JJB
AI summary Mahinda Jayasinghe’s contribution is limited to addressing the Presiding Member, with no substantive argument, proposal, question, or reference to legislation or policy recorded in the provided text.
Parliamentary Procedure Full speech → - The Hon. Presiding Member procedural
- The Hon. Mahinda Jayasinghe JJB
AI summary Mahinda Jayasinghe calls for clarification on the identity of suspects being referred to, noting that similar issues arose in 2024. He appears to press for specificity in the parliamentary discussion before further claims or references are made.
Parliamentary Procedure Full speech → - The Hon. Sunil Watagala, Attorney-at-Law JJB
AI summary Hon. Sunil Watagala requested Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara to provide the document he had tabled in Parliament.
Parliamentary Procedure Full speech → - The Hon. Mahinda Jayasinghe JJB
AI summary Mahinda Jayasinghe requested a copy of a document allegedly tabled regarding a 2024 court order, stating that he and others had not received any such order at the time. He said that in 2025 he, Ranjan Jayalal and then Minister Wasantha Samarasinghe were summoned by police to record statements around 20 August, and that they complied with that order. He disputed the reference to a 2024 order and asked that the relevant document be provided to him.
- The Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Attorney-at-Law SJB
AI summary Dayasiri Jayasekara stated that his side had no intention of having anyone arrested and noted that they were not in government at the relevant time. He emphasized that the issue being raised was the Magistrate’s repeated orders to conclude investigations and to arrest and produce the suspects, which he said were contained in the document under discussion.
Justice & Human Rights Full speech → - The Hon. Presiding Member procedural
- The Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Attorney-at-Law SJB
AI summary Dayasiri Jayasekara stated that the matter should be referred to the relevant legal officer rather than being directed to Members. He noted that he was making the point in his capacity as a lawyer.
Parliamentary Procedure Full speech → - The Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Attorney-at-Law SJB
AI summary Dayasiri Jayasekara questioned whose names were included in a “B” report by the Colombo Fraud Investigation Bureau. He challenged whether he should read out the names in the report, suggesting they included names of Members present.
Corruption & Governance Reform Full speech → - The Hon. Presiding Member procedural
- The Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Attorney-at-Law SJB
AI summary Dayasiri Jayasekara noted that the “B” report was available in full and indicated there was no need to read it entirely into the record. He said he would proceed by reading the remaining names of those who had signed as Chair.
Parliamentary Procedure Full speech → - The Hon. Presiding Member procedural
- The Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Attorney-at-Law SJB
AI summary Dayasiri Jayasekara indicated that he would submit the full “B” report, noting it is about 150 pages, and asked for patience while providing it.
Parliamentary Procedure Full speech → - The Hon. Presiding Member procedural
- The Hon. Athula Welandagoda JJB
AI summary Athula Welandagoda supported the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill presented by the Minister of Women and Child Affairs, arguing that legal reform should accompany efforts to build a society based on human dignity, ethics, and balanced social relations. He said laws alone cannot create good citizens and linked the Bill to the Government’s “A Prosperous Country — A Beautiful Life” policy vision and a broader change in political and social culture. Referring to violent incidents in Middeniya, including threats at a meeting and deaths connected to underworld and narcotics activity, he said the Government is working to curb drugs and criminal networks while using legislation to advance a more humane society.
- The Hon. Deputy Chairperson of Committees procedural
- The Hon. M.A.M. Thahir ACMC
AI summary Hon. M.A.M. Thahir welcomed the child protection amendments but questioned whether they were motivated by genuine protection or political considerations, arguing that legal changes are insufficient without action on issues affecting children. He called for the Government to disclose the masterminds of the Easter Sunday attacks and “ice” drug trafficking, raise Sri Lanka’s voice against child deaths in Palestine, and address concerns about increasing Israeli presence and Chabad houses in areas such as Arugam Bay, Colombo and Weligama. He also thanked the Government for initiating preliminary steps toward a bridge in the Karaitivu–Mavadippalli area after the deaths of eight children during floods.
- The Hon. (Mrs.) Hiruni Wijesinghe, Attorney-at-Law JJB
AI summary Hon. Hiruni Wijesinghe supported the Bill to prohibit punishment and humiliation of children, linking it to Sri Lanka’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and earlier Penal Code amendments on child protection. She argued that despite existing laws, children continue to face abuse, including in contexts of poverty, migration of parents for work, conflict-related orphanhood, and criminal environments. Referring to proposed amendments to Section 308A, she defended the inclusion of non-physical acts causing humiliation and cited examples such as publicly branding a child a thief, stating that such provisions are necessary to protect children’s dignity.
- The Hon. (Dr.) Elayathamby Srinath ITAK
AI summary Hon. (Dr.) Elayathamby Srinath supported the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill as necessary for protecting children from harmful punishment in homes, schools, and communities, but argued that legislation must be accompanied by public education, counselling, and alternative programmes to help parents and teachers guide children without violence. He said punishment can create fear, insecurity, and violent behaviour among children, and called on the Government to take broader preventive action. Referring to suffering in the North and East, including remains found at Chemmani, he also urged the Government to address past injustices against Tamil children and communities through concrete commitments on accountability and resettlement.
- The Hon. M. Nizam Kariapper, PC SJB
AI summary M. Nizam Kariapper thanked Minister Bimal Rathnayake for accepting development proposals from all Ampara District MPs without discrimination and for appointing a committee to oversee implementation. On the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill, he supported its child protection objective but raised concern that proposed Section 308A uses “knowledge” rather than “intention” as the operative mental element for causing physical or psychological pain, which he said could create uncertainty for parents, teachers and courts. He urged that the Bill be referred back to the Sectoral Oversight Committee on Governance, Justice and Civil Protection for expert review, including input from the Attorney-General’s Department and child protection bodies, before proceeding.
- The Hon. Sunil Watagala, Attorney-at-Law — Deputy Minister of Public Security and Parliamentary Affairs JJB
AI summary The Deputy Minister supported the Penal Code amendments to Sections 308, 314 and 316, stating that they raise age limits and penalties to strengthen child protection. He rejected a proposed amendment to add “good faith,” arguing that Section 74 of the Penal Code already gives that term general application. Responding to allegations about judicial independence, he said discussion of Judicial Service Commission decisions and interference with the judiciary are restricted by Articles 111 and 111C, and maintained that judicial transfers and promotions are handled by the JSC without political involvement. He also noted that a document referred to in relation to Hon. Wasantha Samarasinghe and Deputy Minister Mahinda Jayasinghe had not yet reached him.
- The Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Attorney-at-Law SJB
AI summary The Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara stated that the tabled documents would be placed in the Library.
Parliamentary Procedure Full speech → - The Hon. Sunil Watagala, Attorney-at-Law — Deputy Minister JJB
AI summary Deputy Minister Sunil Watagala objected that access to an unspecified matter or document was being unfairly restricted. He briefly asserted that Members should be able to access it before yielding.
Parliamentary Procedure Full speech → - The Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Attorney-at-Law SJB
AI summary Copies of the tabled documents had only just been prepared, and the Member stated that such documents are formally kept in the first-floor Library. He said he had no authority to hand them directly to another Member, though he could provide a copy if necessary, and objected to the claim that he was required to do so.
Parliamentary Procedure Full speech → - The Hon. Sunil Watagala, Attorney-at-Law — Deputy Minister JJB
AI summary The Deputy Minister clarified that the documents and court actions referred to by another Member related to different periods and judicial officers at the Mount Lavinia Magistrate’s Court. He stated that orders made in 2024 predated the current Government, while the 2025 controversy concerned Magistrate Chathurika de Silva and did not involve an order to arrest and produce Minister Wasantha Samarasinghe or Deputy Minister Mahinda Jayasinghe. He said only directions were issued for them to give statements, and argued that the Member had conflated events from 2024 and 2025.
Justice & Human Rights Full speech → - The Hon. Deputy Chairperson of Committees procedural
- The Hon. Sunil Watagala, Attorney-at-Law — Deputy Minister JJB
AI summary Sunil Watagala stated that time had been extended until the conclusion of business and responded to an allegation regarding a judge’s transfer. He said the matter cited by Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara related to a 2024 order, before the current Government was in power, and that in 2025 there had been no order to arrest and produce anyone, only an order to record statements, which had been complied with.
- The Hon. Deputy Chairperson of Committees procedural
- The Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Attorney-at-Law SJB
AI summary Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara stated that his name had been mentioned and sought to intervene on that basis.
Parliamentary Procedure Full speech → - The Hon. Deputy Chairperson of Committees procedural
- The Hon. Sunil Watagala, Attorney-at-Law — Deputy Minister JJB
AI summary The Deputy Minister questioned how an order to arrest and produce individuals could be issued when they had not been named as suspects, urging that Parliament not be misled on the matter. He also referred to comments made by Subhashini Yoganadan at a London summit calling for women’s unity, suggesting that this had provoked criticism from another group.
- The Hon. Deputy Chairperson of Committees procedural
- The Hon. Sunil Watagala, Attorney-at-Law — Deputy Minister JJB
AI summary The Deputy Minister contrasted earlier political divisions between the Senanayake and Bandaranaike camps with the present situation, arguing that the NPP represents the people’s camp. He claimed rival groups associated with Sirikotha had failed to attract public support, citing the Colombo Municipal election defeat, and characterised their recent activities as a reaction to that loss.
Corruption & Governance Reform Full speech → - The Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Attorney-at-Law SJB
AI summary Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Attorney-at-Law, rose to raise a point of order. No substantive issue, proposal, or argument is included in the provided excerpt.
Parliamentary Procedure Full speech → - The Hon. Sunil Watagala, Attorney-at-Law — Deputy Minister JJB
AI summary The Deputy Minister rejected the claim raised as a point of order, stating that no valid point of order existed. He accused the member of misleading the House by conflating 2024 and 2025, asserting that the issue referred to applied to 2024 and that no such order existed in 2025.
Parliamentary Procedure Full speech → - The Hon. Deputy Chairperson of Committees procedural
- The Hon. Sunil Watagala, Attorney-at-Law — Deputy Minister JJB
AI summary Hon. Sunil Watagala challenged a Member’s statement, alleging that the Member had misled the House by referring to an event from 2024 as if it occurred in September 2025. He argued that this was contrary to Standing Orders and called for the Member to acknowledge the error.
Parliamentary Procedure Full speech → - The Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Attorney-at-Law SJB
AI summary No substantive speech content was provided beyond the opening address to the Deputy Chairperson, so there are no arguments, proposals, questions, or policy references to summarize.
Parliamentary Procedure Full speech → - The Hon. Deputy Chairperson of Committees procedural
- The Hon. Sunil Watagala, Attorney-at-Law — Deputy Minister JJB
AI summary The Deputy Minister criticized a member for confusing the Magistrate’s Court with the District Court. He argued that the two courts should be clearly distinguished in the discussion.
Justice & Human Rights Full speech → - The Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Attorney-at-Law SJB
AI summary Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara rose on a point of personal reference, stating that his name had been mentioned in the debate. He requested the Chair’s permission to respond.
Parliamentary Procedure Full speech → - The Hon. Deputy Chairperson of Committees procedural
- The Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Attorney-at-Law SJB
AI summary Dayasiri Jayasekara disputed claims made by another member, stating that he had proved there was no relevant order and rejecting the assertion that a transfer from Magistrate’s Court to District Court in Kesbewa constituted a promotion, citing differences in the judicial cadre structure. He also challenged accusations about forming a government with the UNP by alleging that the opposing side had themselves formed local authorities with UNP members and others, including through inducements and controversial alliances.
- The Hon. Deputy Chairperson of Committees procedural
- The Hon. Nalinda Jayatissa JJB
AI summary Hon. Nalinda Jayatissa disputed claims made by Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara that a Kalutara Magistrate had been transferred due to a judicial order involving alleged government pressure. Citing the document tabled, he argued that the relevant magistrates, dates, and transfers had been conflated, and that Magistrate A.D. Chathurika de Silva had not issued the order alleged. He called on Hon. Jayasekara to acknowledge that inaccurate information had been presented, stating that the claim unfairly implicated the Judicial Service Commission and the judiciary.
- The Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Attorney-at-Law SJB
AI summary Dayasiri Jayasekara responded to a reference to his name, stating that he had produced two Magistrate’s Court orders relating to arrests after being asked to prove their existence. He also referred to transfers of judicial officers to Colombo Fort and Kesbewa while the matter was ongoing, and challenged another member to state that India was not involved in the Easter attacks.
Justice & Human Rights Full speech → - The Hon. Deputy Chairperson of Committees procedural
- The Hon. Saroja Savithri Paulraj JJB
AI summary Hon. Saroja Savithri Paulraj moved to adjourn the Second Reading debate on the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill so it could be considered later alongside the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Bill and the related composite Bill. She stated this was being done on the instructions of the Minister of Justice and National Integration and with the leave of the House; the motion was agreed to and the debate was adjourned.
Parliamentary Procedure Full speech →
- 9 Procedural Resolution on Declaration and Adjournment Motion 2 speeches
- 10 Adjournment Adjournment Questions and Adjournment 7 speeches
- 11 Oral question Questions on Defence Advisers, Migrant Workers, and Employment 6 speeches