Supreme Court Upholds Fair Election Process in Nomination Case

Case Summary: SC Writ Application No. 11/2024

Facts of the Case:

The case concerns an application for Writs of Prohibition, Certiorari, and Mandamus under Article 140 read with Article 104H of the Constitution of Sri Lanka. The petitioners, members of the Democratic National Alliance, sought to contest the 2024 parliamentary election for the Vanni district.

On October 10, 2024, the first petitioner, as the authorized agent, arrived at the District Secretariat to submit the nomination papers. The second and third petitioners accompanied him. At the registration desk, the first petitioner handed over the nomination documents to the second petitioner while he filled out additional information on a form. The second petitioner, responding to a signal from the sixth respondent (the Returning Officer), handed over the nomination papers to him.

Later that day, the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers, citing non-compliance with Sections 15(4) and 15(5) of the Parliamentary Elections Act No. 01 of 1981. The petitioners claimed this rejection was ultra vires, illegal, and unreasonable.

Issues:

1. Whether the rejection of the nomination paper was lawful under Sections 15(4) and 15(5) of the Parliamentary Elections Act.
2. Whether the act of the second petitioner handing over the nomination paper on behalf of the first petitioner invalidated the nomination.
3. Whether the Supreme Court should intervene and issue writs to compel the acceptance of the nomination.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court reviewed CCTV footage and past judgments, particularly SC Writ Application No. 12/2018. The footage showed the first petitioner’s presence and involvement in the process, though the second petitioner physically handed over the nomination paper.

The Court determined that the circumstances sufficiently complied with Section 15(4), as the first petitioner was actively present and involved. Relying on precedent, the Court ruled that the rejection was unreasonable and that the nomination paper should have been accepted.

Thus, the Court:

• Issued a Writ of Certiorari quashing the rejection of the nomination paper.
• Issued a Writ of Mandamus directing the Election Commission to accept the nomination paper.
• Ordered no costs.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the petitioners’ rights, ruling that technicalities should not be used to deny a valid nomination. The case reinforces the principle that electoral processes should be conducted fairly, ensuring that legitimate candidates are not unfairly excluded.