Mr. Deputy Speaker - The Hon. (Dr.) Rizvie Salih

¶ 01 The Parliament met at 9.30 a.m., with me in the Chair.

¶ 02 Announcements.

¶ 03 Summoning of Parliament.

¶ 04 The Secretary-General of Parliament will now read out the Gazette Notification summoning Parliament at the request of the Hon. Prime Minister.

¶ 05 Whereupon the Secretary-General of Parliament read the following Gazette Notification:

¶ 06 Extraordinary Gazette No. 2442/30 — Tuesday, 24th June 2025 — 2025.06.24

¶ 07 Part I: Section (I) — General

¶ 08 Government Notifications

¶ 09 Announcement by the Speaker

¶ 10 Summoning a meeting of the Parliament of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka on Monday, 30th June 2025 at 9.30 a.m.

¶ 11 In terms of Standing Order 16 of the Standing Orders of Parliament, at the request of the Hon. Prime Minister, I, Dr. Jagath Chitramaratne, Speaker of Parliament, hereby notify that I have summoned Parliament to meet on Monday, 30th June 2025 at 9.30 a.m.

¶ 12 Dr. Jagath Chitramaratne, Speaker. 24th June 2025, Sri Jayewardenepura Kotte.

¶ 13 Budgetary Relief Allowance of Workers (Amendment) Bills: Determinations of the Supreme Court.

¶ 14 I wish to announce that the Hon. Speaker has received the Determinations of the Supreme Court on the Bill titled “Budgetary Relief Allowance of Workers (Amendment)”, (L.D.-O 19/2025) and the Bill titled “Budgetary Relief Allowance of Workers (Amendment)”, (L.D.-O 20/2025), which had been challenged in the Supreme Court under Article 121(1) of the Constitution.

¶ 15 The Supreme Court has held that the provisions of the Bills are inconsistent with Article 12(1) of the Constitution and can only be passed with the special majority required under paragraph (2) of Article 84.

¶ 16 Further, the inconsistency will cease if the National Minimum Wage of Workers (Amendment) Bill is first passed by a simple majority and certified into law and subsequently, these two Bills are passed by a simple majority and certified into laws.

¶ 17 I order that the two full Determinations of the Supreme Court be printed in the Official Report of today's Proceedings.

¶ 18 Determinations of the Supreme Court:

¶ 19 (a) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA

¶ 20 “Budgetary Relief Allowance of Workers (Amendment)” Bill — To amend the Budgetary Relief Allowance of Workers Act, No. 4 of 2016

¶ 21 S.C. (SD) No. 16/2025

¶ 22 Petitioner: Suranjaya Amarasinghe, General Secretary, Commercial and Industrial Workers’ Union, No. 17, Barracks Lane, Colombo 02. Counsel: Swasthika Arulingam

¶ 23 S.C. (SD) No. 17/2025

¶ 24 Petitioner: Devinda Kodagoda, Secretary, Private Workers’ Centre, No. 49/53 B, Salmal Uyana, Kirindiwela Road, Yakkala. Counsel: Nuwan Bopage

¶ 25 Respondent: Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Counsel for the State: Sumathi Dharmawardena, PC, ASG with Manohara Jayasinghe, DSG

¶ 26 Before: S. Thurairaja, PC, J.; Kumudini Wickremasinghe, J.; Janak De Silva, J.

¶ 27 The Court assembled for hearing at 10.00 a.m. on 18th June 2025.

¶ 28 A Bill in its short title referred to as the “Budgetary Relief Allowance of Workers (Amendment) Bill” to amend the Budgetary Relief Allowance of Workers Act, No. 4 of 2016 was published in the Government Gazette of 20th May 2025. It was placed on the Order Paper of Parliament on 3rd June 2025.

¶ 29 Two petitions bearing Nos. S.C.S.D. 15/2025 and S.C.S.D. 18/2025 were filed, challenging the constitutionality of the Bill. Notice was issued on the Hon. Attorney General under Article 134(1). The Petitioners and the Hon. Attorney-General were heard.

¶ 30 Outline of the Bill: The Bill seeks to amend Section 3 of Act No. 4 of 2016. The legal effect is to cease payment of the Budgetary Relief Allowance with effect from 31st March 2025.

¶ 31 Jurisdiction: The Court exercised jurisdiction under Articles 120 and 123, noting its scope is to determine inconsistency of the Bill or any provision with the Constitution, and, where relevant, the consequential requirements under Article 123(2). Proposed Committee Stage amendments cannot be ruled upon except in specifying amendments that would remove inconsistency.

¶ 32 Contention: The Bill removes existing allowances without reasonable justification; is arbitrary; and operates retrospectively affecting workers already paid for April–June 2025. It is said to be inconsistent with Articles 27(7), 27(8), 27(9) and 12(1), thus requiring a special majority and a Referendum.

¶ 33 Historical Context: Budgetary relief allowances were first introduced under earlier laws, increased in 2005 and 2016.

¶ 34 Analysis: Although Article 75 allows retrospective laws, any amendment depriving a worker of allowances received or to be received under Act No. 4 of 2016 would be arbitrary and inconsistent with Article 12(1).

¶ 35 However, the State drew attention to the National Minimum Wage of Workers (Amendment) Bill tabled the same day, whose constitutionality has not been impugned. Its legal effect is to increase the National Minimum Monthly Wage and Daily Wage from 1st April 2025 and again from 1st January 2026, and to consolidate the budgetary relief allowances into wages. Section 3(a) of that Bill incorporates the budgetary relief allowances payable as at 31st March 2025 into the national minimum wage.

¶ 36 Determination: The Bill’s provisions are inconsistent with Article 12(1) and can only be passed with the special majority under Article 84(2). The inconsistency will cease if the National Minimum Wage of Workers (Amendment) Bill is first passed by a simple majority and certified into law and subsequently this Bill is passed and certified.

¶ 37 S. Thurairaja, PC — Judge of the Supreme Court Kumudini Wickremasinghe — Judge of the Supreme Court Janak De Silva — Judge of the Supreme Court

¶ 38 (b) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA

¶ 39 “Budgetary Relief Allowance of Workers (Amendment) Bill” — To amend the Budgetary Relief Allowance of Workers Act, No. 36 of 2005

¶ 40 S.C. (SD) No. 15/2025

¶ 41 Petitioner: Suranjaya Amarasinghe, General Secretary, Commercial and Industrial Workers’ Union, No. 17, Barracks Lane, Colombo 02. Counsel: Swasthika Arulingam

¶ 42 S.C. (SD) No. 18/2025

¶ 43 Petitioner: Devinda Kodagoda, Secretary, Private Workers’ Centre, No. 49/53 B, Salmal Uyana, Kirindiwela Road, Yakkala. Counsel: Nuwan Bopege

¶ 44 Respondent: Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Counsel for the State: Sumathi Dharmawardena, PC, ASG with Manohara Jayasinghe, DSG

¶ 45 Before: S. Thurairaja, PC, J.; Kumudini Wickremasinghe, J.; Janak De Silva, J.

¶ 46 The Court assembled for hearing at 10.00 a.m. on 18th June 2025.

¶ 47 A Bill to amend the Budgetary Relief Allowance of Workers Act, No. 36 of 2005 was published in the Government Gazette of 20th May 2025 and placed on the Order Paper on 3rd June 2025. Two petitions challenged its constitutionality.

¶ 48 The outline, jurisdiction, contentions, historical context, and analysis mirrored those set out above, mutatis mutandis, in respect of Act No. 36 of 2005.

¶ 49 Determination: The provisions of the Bill are inconsistent with Article 12(1) and can only be passed with the special majority under Article 84(2). The inconsistency will cease if the National Minimum Wage of Workers (Amendment) Bill is first passed by a simple majority and certified into law and subsequently this Bill is passed and certified.

¶ 50 S. Thurairaja, PC — Judge of the Supreme Court Kumudini Wickremasinghe — Judge of the Supreme Court Janak De Silva — Judge of the Supreme Court

¶ 51 Companies (Amendment) Bill: Determination of the Supreme Court.

¶ 52 I wish to announce to Parliament that the Hon. Speaker has received the Decision of the Supreme Court in respect of the Bill titled “Companies (Amendment)”, which had been challenged in the Supreme Court in terms of Article 121(1) of the Constitution.

¶ 53 The Supreme Court has communicated that since the Petitioners in S.C. (SD) 19/2025 and S.C. (SD) 20/2025 had opted to withdraw the petitions as they are satisfied with the proposed Committee Stage Amendments, the Court had not made a Determination on the constitutionality of the Bill.

¶ 54 I order that the Decision of the Supreme Court be printed in the Official Report of today’s Proceedings.

¶ 55 Determination of the Supreme Court:

¶ 56 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA

¶ 57 “Companies (Amendment) Bill”

¶ 58 S.C. (SD) No. 19/2025

¶ 59 Petitioner: Institute for the Development of Commercial Law and Practice, No. 53, Ananda Coomaraswamy Mawatha, Colombo 00700. Counsel: Dr. Kanag-Iswaran, PC with Dilshani Wijayawardana and Lakshman Jeyakumar

¶ 60 S.C. (SD) No. 20/2025

¶ 61 Petitioners: 1. Transparency International Sri Lanka, No. 366, Nawala Road, Nawala, Rajagiriya. 2. Pulasthi R.K. Hewamanna, No. 366, Nawala Road, Nawala, Rajagiriya. Counsel: Nilshantha Sirimanne with Saranee Gunathilaka and Nithma Fernando

¶ 62 Respondent: Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Dept., Colombo 12. Counsel for the State: Nirmaian Wigneswaran, DSG with Sabrina Ahmed, SSC and Induni Randeni, SC

¶ 63 Before: Janak De Silva, J.; Mahinda Samayawardhena, J.; Arjuna Obeyesekere, J.

¶ 64 The Court assembled for hearing at 10.00 a.m. on 23rd and 24th June 2025.

¶ 65 A Bill titled the “Companies (Amendment) Bill” to amend the Companies Act, No. 07 of 2007 was published in the Government Gazette of 24th April 2025 and placed on the Order Paper on 5th June 2025.

¶ 66 Two petitions challenged the constitutionality of the Bill. Upon hearing parties, the learned DSG proposed certain Committee Stage amendments to address the Petitioners’ concerns. The Petitioners indicated satisfaction with the proposed amendments and moved to withdraw both petitions.

¶ 67 Jurisdiction: The Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 120 and 123 is to determine inconsistency of the Bill or any provision with the Constitution; it does not extend to proposed Committee Stage amendments. Accordingly, the Court made no determination on the constitutionality of the proposed amendments. In view of the bona fide applications, withdrawal was allowed.

¶ 68 We record appreciation for the assistance of learned Counsel and the learned DSG.

¶ 69 Janak De Silva — Judge of the Supreme Court Mahinda Samayawardhena — Judge of the Supreme Court Arjuna Obeyesekere — Judge of the Supreme Court

¶ 70 Sri Lanka Electricity (Amendment) Bill: Determination of the Supreme Court.

¶ 71 I wish to announce to Parliament that the Hon. Speaker has received the Determination of the Supreme Court in respect of the Bill titled “Sri Lanka Electricity (Amendment)”, which was challenged in the Supreme Court in terms of Article 121(1) of the Constitution.

¶ 72 In the said Determination, the Supreme Court has summarized the constitutionality of the Bill as follows:

¶ 73 - Clause 8(2) shall be amended suitably to provide that the members of the Committee referred to therein shall be liable under the Anti-Corruption Act, No. 9 of 2023. - Clause 13(1)(c) is violative of Article 3 of the Constitution and requires to be passed by the special majority of Parliament and be approved by the people at a Referendum. However, the said violation shall cease if this Clause is amended as set out in the Summary of the Determination of the Supreme Court. - Clause 13(1)(b) is vague and arbitrary as it does not contain any provisions relating to the transfer of employees and their rights as employees during the second stage of unbundling. Therefore, this Clause is violative of Article 12(1) read with Article 14(1)(g) of the Constitution, and this Clause shall only be passed by the special majority required under Article 84(2). The said violation shall however cease if this Clause is amended as set out in the Summary of the Determination of the Supreme Court. - Clause 13(2) is in violation of Articles 12(1) and 14(1)(g) of the Constitution. The said violation shall however cease if this Clause is amended as set out in the Summary of the Determination of the Supreme Court.

¶ 74 I order that the full Determination of the Supreme Court be printed in the Official Report of today’s Proceedings of the House.

¶ 75 Determination of the Supreme Court:

¶ 76 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA

¶ 77 “Sri Lanka Electricity (Amendment) Bill”

¶ 78 Petitioners: 1. Ceylon Electricity Board Engineers’ Union 2. Thejapriya Athulakeerthi 3. Pati Arambage Sithum Lakshan Kumaratunga 4. Jayanka Kumudini Gamlath

¶ 79 S.C. (SD) No. 08/2025 Counsel: Uditha Egalahewa, PC with N.K. Ashokbharan

¶ 80 S.C. (SD) No. 09/2025 Petitioners: K.A.N. Gihan Wijesinghe; W.A. Priyantha Prabath; Kosala Abeysinghe; G.A. Shakila Lakinal; K.H.S. Priyantha; Upul Rohana Wickremaarachchi Counsel: Shantha Jayawardena with Hirannya Damunupola, Azra Basheer, Niroshika Wegiriya, Wihangi Tissera and Ranatunga

¶ 81 S.C. (SD) No. 10/2025 Petitioner: Ajith P. Perera Counsel: Sapumal Bandara with Ganguli De Silva Dayarathna, Vishmi Yapa Abeywardhane and Dilan Kuragodage

¶ 82 S.C. (SD) No. 11/2025 Petitioner: Mahinda Vidhura Bandara Ralapanawe Counsel: Senani Dayaratne with Nishadi Wickramasinghe, Maheshika Bandara and Janani Abeywikrama

¶ 83 S.C. (SD) No. 12/2025 Petitioner: Priyantha Wickramasinghe Counsel: Swasthika Arulingam

¶ 84 S.C. (SD) No. 13/2025 Petitioners: 1. Jayalath Abayawardena Mudiyanselage Sanka Chandima Abayawardena; 2. Ballanthudawa Achchige Nuwan Chamara Indunil; 3. Liyana Arachchige Parakrama Jayasinghe Counsel: Canishka Witharana with Sawani Rajakaruna, Anuradha Ponnamperuma and Sathmi Witharana

¶ 85 S.C. (SD) No. 14/2025 Petitioner: Duminda Nagamuwa Counsel: Thanuka Nandasiri with Ishan Jayasundera

¶ 86 vs.

¶ 87 Respondent: Hon. Attorney General Counsel: Viveka Siriwardena, PC, Additional Solicitor General with Ishara Madarasinghe, State Counsel and Medhaka Fernando, State Counsel

¶ 88 Before: A.H.M.D. Nawaz, J; Arjuna Obeyesekere, J; K. Priyantha Fernando, J

¶ 89 The Court assembled for hearing at 10.00 a.m. on 11th and 12th June 2025.

¶ 90 The Bill, published as a Supplement in Part II of the Government Gazette of 16th May 2025, was presented by the Hon. Minister of Power and placed on the Order Paper of 23rd May 2025.

¶ 91 Fifteen Petitioners invoked jurisdiction under Article 121(1), alleging violations of Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 12(1), 12(2), 14(1)(g) and 83, seeking a determination requiring a special majority and a Referendum.

¶ 92 Jurisdiction: The Court’s role under Articles 120 and 123 is to determine inconsistency, and, where applicable, whether Article 82, 84(2), or 83 requirements apply. A Referendum is required only if a Bill seeks to amend, repeal or replace Articles listed in Article 83.

¶ 93 Electricity Act Context: The Electricity Act, No. 36 of 2024, certified on 27th June 2024, implements reforms to unbundle the Ceylon Electricity Board into companies under the Companies Act, provides for a Transfer Plan, and phases of commencement, including default commencement if no appointed date is published within the prescribed time.

¶ 94 The Bill’s Objectives and Amendments: The Bill introduces institutional reforms and adjustments to timelines; repeals the National Electricity Advisory Council and replaces it with a Ministerial Committee (subject to Anti-Corruption Act liability); refines emergency procurement; restructures unbundling into two phases; and addresses shareholding and governance, including transmission ownership and provident/pension fund governance.

¶ 95 Findings on Key Clauses:

¶ 96 - Clause 4: No arbitrariness arises from the four-month default commencement extension, given safeguards and prerequisites.

¶ 97 - Clause 7 and 8(2): Repeal of the Advisory Council is not unconstitutional; however, members of the replacement Committee must be expressly liable under the Anti-Corruption Act, No. 9 of 2023. Clause 8(2) shall be amended suitably.

¶ 98 - Clause 11: Limited emergency procurement without tender during a national calamity or long-term forced outage, subject to Cabinet determination and a one-year cap (extendable with Cabinet approval), contains sufficient safeguards; not unconstitutional.

¶ 99 - Clause 12(1): Increasing Government shareholding in the transmission licensee to 100% is a policy choice; no inconsistency, with private participation avenues remaining through other provisions.

¶ 100 - Clause 13(1)(c): Proposed proviso enabling non-Treasury shareholding in the hydropower generation company violates Article 3 (sovereignty of the People over natural resources) and would require a special majority and a Referendum. The violation will cease if the proviso is deleted and Clause 13(1)(c) is amended to ensure the Secretary to the Treasury permanently holds 100% of shares in the hydropower generation company, by inserting the words “and the company referred to in item (i)(i) of Schedule I relating to the hydropower generation”.

¶ 101 - Clause 13(1)(b): The second-stage unbundling lacks provisions on employee transfer/rights, rendering it vague and arbitrary, violating Article 12(1) read with 14(1)(g). This would require a special majority under Article 84(2). The violation will cease if Committee Stage amendments insert provisions (proposed Sections 18(3)(h) and 18(3)(i)) ensuring identification, notification, options for assignment or voluntary retirement, and preservation of terms and conditions.

¶ 102 - Clause 13(2): Proposed governance for the Provident and Pension Fund company conflicts with existing employee representation safeguards and violates Articles 12(1) and 14(1)(g). The inconsistency will cease if the Board is expanded from five to nine members and includes four representatives from serving and former employees of the CEB (proposed Section 17(7)(d)).

¶ 103 - Clause 17(1): Requiring the Regulator to act “in consultation with the Ministry of Finance” when setting tariffs does not erode independence and is not inconsistent with the Constitution.

¶ 104 Conclusion: Subject to the above amendments—Clause 8(2) Anti-Corruption Act liability; deletion and replacement of Clause 13(1)(c) to secure State ownership of hydropower; insertion of employee transfer/rights provisions for second-stage unbundling (Clause 13(1)(b)); and inclusion of employee representation in the Provident/Pension Fund company board (Clause 13(2))—the Bill may be passed by a simple majority. Absent such amendments, the respective clauses attract the requirements indicated (special majority and, for Clause 13(1)(c) as drafted, special majority plus Referendum).

¶ 105 We record appreciation for the assistance of learned Counsel and the learned Additional Solicitor General.

¶ 106 A.H.M.D. Nawaz — Judge of the Supreme Court Arjuna Obeyesekere — Judge of the Supreme Court K. Priyantha Fernando — Judge of the Supreme Court