Case Summary: Supreme Court Fundamental Rights Applications on the 2023 Local Authorities Elections in Sri Lanka

Background and Legal Context

This case consists of four fundamental rights applications (SC FR 69/2023, SC FR 79/2023, SC FR 90/2023, SC FR 139/2023) filed before the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka under Articles 17 and 126 of the Constitution. The core issue is the government’s failure to hold the 2023 Local Authorities Elections within the legally mandated time frame.

The Local Authorities Elections were last held on February 10, 2018, with a four-year term limit for elected officials. Their tenure was extended until March 19, 2023, by an extraordinary gazette notification on January 10, 2022. However, despite the Election Commission setting March 9, 2023, as the election date, the government cited financial constraints and did not provide the necessary funds, resulting in an indefinite postponement of the elections.

Petitioners and Their Claims

The petitioners—opposition political parties, civil society organizations, and individuals—argued that the failure to conduct elections violated their fundamental rights, including:

1. Right to Franchise (Voting Rights): Guaranteed under Article 3 (sovereignty of the people) and Article 4(e) (right to vote).
2. Freedom of Expression: Voting is a form of expression protected under Article 14(1)(a).
3. Arbitrary and Politically Motivated Decision-Making: The refusal to release funds was not purely an economic decision but a deliberate attempt to suppress elections.
4. Dangerous Precedent for Democracy: Allowing the executive branch to postpone elections using financial restrictions could undermine future electoral processes.

Key Legal Issues and Violations

1. Constitutional and Legal Duty to Hold Elections

• Article 103 of the Constitution requires the Election Commission to conduct free and fair elections.
• Article 33(c) states that the President must ensure proper conditions for elections, yet the government failed to provide the necessary resources.
• Sections 24–26 of the Local Authorities Elections Ordinance mandate that elections must be held before the expiration of the term of local bodies.

2. Government’s Failure to Provide Funding

• The 2023 Budget allocated 10 billion Rupees for elections, but the Treasury did not release the funds.
• A Budget Circular (02/2023) issued on February 2, 2023, limited government spending to essential services, excluding elections.
• A Cabinet decision on February 6, 2023, prioritized other expenditures, such as food security and public welfare, over elections.

3. Role of the Government Printer and Police

• The Government Printer refused to print ballot papers, citing a lack of security personnel.
• The Inspector General of Police (IGP) failed to deploy officers, even though police were available for national events like Independence Day celebrations.

Supreme Court Judgment (August 22, 2024)

After hearing arguments from both parties, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners. The key points of the judgment are as follows:

1. Fundamental Rights Violation

The Court held that the failure to conduct the Local Authorities Elections violated Articles 12(1) and 14(1)(a) of the Constitution, which protect equal rights and freedom of expression.

• The Court emphasized that the right to vote is part of the sovereignty of the people, and denying elections without legal justification amounts to a fundamental rights violation.
• Financial constraints cannot be used as an excuse to violate constitutional rights.

2. Government’s Actions Were Arbitrary and Unlawful

• The Court found that the government had sufficient budgetary allocations for elections but deliberately withheld funds.
• The Cabinet decisions and Treasury circulars were deemed politically motivated and not based on genuine economic necessity.

3. Election Commission and Other Authorities Failed in Their Duties

• The Election Commission was legally bound to hold elections but failed to assert its authority effectively.
• The Government Printer and Police were complicit in the postponement by failing to fulfill their duties.

4. Orders Issued by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court issued several binding orders:

1. The Treasury is required to release the allocated funds for elections immediately.
2. The Election Commission must announce and conduct elections without further delay.
3. The Government Printer and Police must provide full cooperation for the election process.
4. The Cabinet must not interfere in the conduct of elections, as it is a constitutional duty of the Election Commission.

5. Precedent for Future Elections

• The Court emphasized that this ruling sets a legal precedent, ensuring that no future government can delay elections using financial excuses.
• The sovereignty of the people and the right to vote must be upheld, regardless of economic conditions.

Conclusion and Implications

This Supreme Court decision is a landmark ruling for democracy in Sri Lanka. It:

• Upholds the right to vote as a fundamental right.
• Limits the executive branch’s ability to interfere in elections.
• Reaffirms judicial oversight in protecting democratic processes.

The ruling mandates that the Local Authorities Elections be held without delay, restoring public confidence in the electoral system. It also prevents future administrations from using financial constraints as a tool for political manipulation.

This case serves as a powerful reminder of the judiciary’s role in safeguarding democracy and reinforces the independence of the Election Commission in conducting free and fair elections.