Papers by Natasha Wijeyesekera
Sri Lanka Journal of Legal Studies , 2024
In 2015, Sri Lanka experienced a significant shift in political power as the National Unity Gover... more In 2015, Sri Lanka experienced a significant shift in political power as the National Unity Government defeated the incumbent President Mahinda Rajapakse. Led by President Maithripala Sirisena, the Unity Government committed to restoring a more democratic constitutional framework through a '100-day work programme' under the banner of 'good governance.' A key element of this programme was the Nineteenth Amendment (19A) to the 1978 Constitution, which introduced long-overdue structural reforms, reconfiguring the Executive Presidency and strengthening Parliament. However, internal power struggles between the coalition's rival parties eventually led to the government's slow disintegration.
On 26th October 2018, in an unprecedented move, President Sirisena removed Prime Minister Ranil Wickremasinghe from office, appointing former President Rajapakse in his place. He then prorogued Parliament, ostensibly to prevent Wickremasinghe from demonstrating his majority, buying time for the new government to secure support. When these efforts failed, on 9th November 2018, Sirisena issued a Proclamation dissolving Parliament and calling for a General Election.
Against this politically charged backdrop, the Supreme Court delivered its judgement in Sampanthan v Attorney General. This case analysis critically examines the Court’s reasoning, with particular focus on key aspects of constitutional law. The argument unfolds in three parts. Part I outlines the main legal issue and the Court's ruling. Part II explores the interpretive principles and constitutional foundations that shaped the Court's approach. Part III assesses the judicial stance on the justiciability of the President’s power to dissolve Parliament, which arose as a preliminary objection. The analysis concludes that, despite the intense political pressure at the time, the Court reached the correct decision, grounded in sound legal reasoning. Nonetheless, it also highlights certain avenues of argument that the Court overlooked.
General Sir John Kotelawela Defence University Law Journal (Volume III, Issue 02)., 2023
What does the study of constitutional adjudication reveal about Sri Lanka's judicial engagement w... more What does the study of constitutional adjudication reveal about Sri Lanka's judicial engagement with comparative law? What are the models employed by courts in embracing constitutional experiences of foreign jurisdictions? What are the dangers associated with judicial borrowing? In seeking answers to these questions of comparative method, this paper evaluates several emblematic decisions handed down by the Sri Lankan judiciary in the sphere of environmental justice. While the analysis suggests that the courts have drawn inspiration from Indian authorities and international environmental law standards to varying degrees, the discourse on comparative constitutional adjudication remains characterised by two broad criticisms; Firstly, that foreign law/concepts fail to adequately capture the needs and aspirations of the people as, constitutions are, by their very nature, linked to a particular nation's identity. Secondly, that citation of foreign authorities occurs as an ad hoc judicial practice, leaving room for absurdities to seep in. Notwithstanding these criticisms, the paper emphasises that, in the context of Sri Lanka's constitutional scheme where specific environmental rights are absent, the careful judicial adoption and adaptation of foreign law could prove useful in filling the void left by the legislature, in bolstering the rights of vulnerable communities, and in promoting greater governmental accountability.
The Kandyan Law of Intestate Succession: The Plight of the Diga Married Daughter in Light of the Ruling in Peiris Singho v Menikhamy, 2021
On 29th September 2021, the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka handed down its decision in Wickramasinghe... more On 29th September 2021, the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka handed down its decision in Wickramasinghe Mudiyanselage Peiris Singho and others v Wickramasinghe Mudiyanselage Menikhamy and others. Delivering judgement for a unanimous bench of the court, Justice Thurairaja declared that a diga married daughter who returns to her ancestral home or ‘Mulgedara’ with her children, after her husband’s death, has no right to succeed her father’s intestate estate under the Kandyan Law of succession.
In Sri Lanka’s socio-economic landscape, where property is viewed as a strong demarcation of power and a source of income, security, status and recognition, the judgement in Peiris Singho v Menikhamy foregrounds the struggles faced by women in claiming a legitimate share in landed property.
The following piece offers a commentary on the above judgement from a gendered perspective, drawing attention to some avenues of thinking that may have been overlooked by the court.
This is purely an academic critique of a judgement pronounced by the apex courts; it is in no way intended to discredit the credibility or impartiality of the learned justices of the Supreme Court.
Providing adequate environmental protection under the Constitution of Sri Lanka: An agenda for reform, 2021
The numerous ecological challenges faced by countries across the world have revived a discourse w... more The numerous ecological challenges faced by countries across the world have revived a discourse within theories of justice about the adequacy of domestic law to combat the global climate crisis. As a state in the global south, largely dependent on climate-sensitive sectors such as agriculture and fishing, this discourse is of particular relevance to Sri Lanka.
This article evaluates Sri Lanka’s efforts at advancing environmental justice from the perspective of constitutional law. The qualitative research undertaken suggests two things; firstly, that the existing constitutional provisions and soft-law obligations are inadequate to resolve the complex problems posed by environmental degradation; secondly, that the Sri Lankan courts have played a laudable role in re-defining and expanding the frontiers of environmental justice despite being constrained by narrow constitutional provisions and doctrinal constrains stemming on account of being a dualist nation. The article emphasises that, any future attempt at constitutional reform should look beyond the conventional understanding of environmental protection and advocate for a more durable means of achieving environmental justice. It is proposed that a constitutional acknowledgement of climate change issues and the elevation of environmental care to the status of a higher legal norm would be a decisive step in this direction.
Uploads
Papers by Natasha Wijeyesekera
On 26th October 2018, in an unprecedented move, President Sirisena removed Prime Minister Ranil Wickremasinghe from office, appointing former President Rajapakse in his place. He then prorogued Parliament, ostensibly to prevent Wickremasinghe from demonstrating his majority, buying time for the new government to secure support. When these efforts failed, on 9th November 2018, Sirisena issued a Proclamation dissolving Parliament and calling for a General Election.
Against this politically charged backdrop, the Supreme Court delivered its judgement in Sampanthan v Attorney General. This case analysis critically examines the Court’s reasoning, with particular focus on key aspects of constitutional law. The argument unfolds in three parts. Part I outlines the main legal issue and the Court's ruling. Part II explores the interpretive principles and constitutional foundations that shaped the Court's approach. Part III assesses the judicial stance on the justiciability of the President’s power to dissolve Parliament, which arose as a preliminary objection. The analysis concludes that, despite the intense political pressure at the time, the Court reached the correct decision, grounded in sound legal reasoning. Nonetheless, it also highlights certain avenues of argument that the Court overlooked.
In Sri Lanka’s socio-economic landscape, where property is viewed as a strong demarcation of power and a source of income, security, status and recognition, the judgement in Peiris Singho v Menikhamy foregrounds the struggles faced by women in claiming a legitimate share in landed property.
The following piece offers a commentary on the above judgement from a gendered perspective, drawing attention to some avenues of thinking that may have been overlooked by the court.
This is purely an academic critique of a judgement pronounced by the apex courts; it is in no way intended to discredit the credibility or impartiality of the learned justices of the Supreme Court.
This article evaluates Sri Lanka’s efforts at advancing environmental justice from the perspective of constitutional law. The qualitative research undertaken suggests two things; firstly, that the existing constitutional provisions and soft-law obligations are inadequate to resolve the complex problems posed by environmental degradation; secondly, that the Sri Lankan courts have played a laudable role in re-defining and expanding the frontiers of environmental justice despite being constrained by narrow constitutional provisions and doctrinal constrains stemming on account of being a dualist nation. The article emphasises that, any future attempt at constitutional reform should look beyond the conventional understanding of environmental protection and advocate for a more durable means of achieving environmental justice. It is proposed that a constitutional acknowledgement of climate change issues and the elevation of environmental care to the status of a higher legal norm would be a decisive step in this direction.