Sri Lanka’s Court of Appeal has issued notices against MP Archuna Ramanathan in a high-profile quo warranto case, raising serious questions about his eligibility to hold parliamentary office. With parallels drawn to Geetha Kumarasinghe’s disqualification, the legal battle intensifies over whether Archuna, suspended without pay but still on the state payroll, qualifies as a public servant. The final verdict could reshape parliamentary representation.
The Court of Appeal today (02) issued notices to the respondents in the writ application of quo warranto filed against Parliamentarian Archuna Ramanathan, questioning his eligibility to hold office.
The case was taken up before a two-judge bench comprising Justices Mayadunne Corea and Mahen Gopallawa. During the hearing, submissions were made by legal counsel representing both the MP and the petitioner.
The lawyer representing MP Archuna argued that his client’s duties have been suspended and he is not receiving a salary. Therefore, he should not be classified as a public servant. He also claimed that the court’s interpretation in the previous Dilan Perera vs. Rajitha Senaratne ruling was flawed.
He further requested that the court acknowledge that Archuna was elected by the will of 25,000 voters and that this matter was not one of judicial contempt. He urged the court not to proceed with the issuance of notices and to dismiss the case.
However, in reply, the counsel representing the petitioner argued that simply being suspended without pay does not disqualify someone from being considered a public servant. He pointed out that the MP still holds a salaried post and has neither resigned nor been formally removed from public service criteria which meet the definition of a public officer under existing legal frameworks.
The petitioner’s lawyer further criticized the respondent’s interpretation, stating that it posed challenges in relation to constitutional provisions and the authority of parliamentary Select Committees. He drew parallels with the case of former MP Geetha Kumarasinghe, who lost her parliamentary seat despite securing over 63,000 votes, arguing that electoral support alone cannot shield someone from disqualification.
He dismissed the MP’s argument about being elected by 25,000 votes, saying it held no legal merit in this context.
Following these arguments, the Court of Appeal bench issued notices to the relevant respondents in the case. The hearing was officially postponed, with the next court date scheduled for August 1.
