Facilitating Democracy: Court of Appeal Emphasizes Liberal Interpretation of Election Laws
This case arose from a dispute over the rejection of nomination papers submitted on behalf of the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) for the Kalawana Pradeshiya Sabha local government election. The petitioner, Sagara Kariyawasam, General Secretary of the SLPP, filed a writ application under Article 140 of the Constitution, seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the decision of the 1st respondent—the Returning Officer for Kalawana—and a Writ of Mandamus compelling the acceptance of the nomination papers. The Court of Appeal heard the case on April 3, 2025, and delivered its judgment the following day.
The central issue was whether the rejection of the nomination papers was lawful. The Returning Officer had refused to accept the documents on the grounds that the declarations submitted by the candidates did not include a jurat or an attestation by a Justice of the Peace (JP)—formalities which he claimed were required under Section 28(4) of the Local Authorities Elections Ordinance, read with the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.
In court, the petitioner’s legal team argued that such formalities are not stipulated in the Constitution and that the declaration submitted was in strict compliance with the 7th Schedule. They relied heavily on the precedent set in Susil Premajayantha v. Dayananda Dissanayake (CA/WRT/84/2011), where it was held that a declaration made under the 7th Schedule was sufficient and did not require additional certification such as attestation or a jurat.
Conversely, the Senior State Counsel representing the respondents cited Ven. Weadinigama Wimalathissa Thero v. Rathnayake (CA/WRT/86/2020), where the Court had ruled that attestation by a JP and inclusion of a jurat were mandatory for a valid declaration. However, Justice M. T. Mohammed Laffar, delivering the judgment of the Court, rejected this position, emphasizing that such requirements are not found in the Constitution and amount to an unauthorized addition to constitutional provisions. He stressed that the Constitution, being the supreme law, must be applied strictly as written, and no court has the authority to insert new requirements that are not expressly included.
The Court criticized the practice of rejecting nominations based on minor technicalities, stating that such actions have far-reaching consequences, not only for the candidates involved but for the democratic rights of the electorate as a whole. Arbitrary rejection of nominations impairs the people’s right to choose their representatives and disrupts the integrity of the electoral process. The judgment reiterated the principle that electoral laws must facilitate, rather than obstruct, democratic participation.
Further, the Court noted that no objections had been raised by any candidates or political parties regarding the declarations submitted by the SLPP. The identification of candidates had also been properly supported by the submission of National Identity Cards, eliminating any ambiguity about the candidates’ identities.
Ultimately, the Court granted both the Writ of Certiorari and the Writ of Mandamus, allowing the SLPP’s nomination papers to be accepted. It held that the rejection by the Returning Officer was legally unsustainable.
In conclusion, this judgment serves as a landmark reaffirmation of the principle that democratic participation should not be hindered by unnecessary technical barriers. It reinforces the idea that electoral authorities must act as facilitators of democracy and interpret laws in a manner that upholds fundamental rights rather than restricts them.
