COLOMBO, Sri Lanka — The Court of Appeal will resume hearing a writ petition challenging the former Deputy Secretary General’s suspension, with arguments focusing on parliamentary administrative authority, disciplinary procedures and the limits of judicial review.
The Court of Appeal is scheduled to resume consideration of a writ petition filed by former Deputy Secretary General and Chief of Staff of Parliament Chaminda Kularatne on Friday, 6 November 2026, as a dispute over his suspension raises questions about the exercise of disciplinary powers within Parliament.
The application, numbered CA (Writ) 109/2026, challenges the legality of the decision to interdict Kularatne from service and the disciplinary process associated with that decision.
It was considered on 3 November before a two-judge bench comprising President of the Court of Appeal Justice Rohantha Abeysuriya and Justice K. P. Fernando.
President’s Counsel Sanjeeva Jayawardena, appearing for Kularatne, is expected to continue responding to preliminary objections advanced on behalf of the Speaker of Parliament when proceedings resume.
The dispute raises a distinction between Parliament’s constitutional protections in carrying out its legislative functions and the legal requirements governing employment and administrative decisions within its Secretariat.
A Dispute Over Disciplinary Authority
Kularatne’s principal argument concerns the powers assigned under the Parliamentary Staffs Act.
His legal team maintains that disciplinary control over members of the parliamentary staff is vested in the Secretary General of Parliament and must be exercised in accordance with the statutory framework.
Counsel argues that neither the Speaker nor the Parliamentary Staff Advisory Committee can assume disciplinary powers in a manner inconsistent with the Act.
The legislation provides for disciplinary authority to be exercised by the relevant parliamentary administrative officer in consultation with the Speaker. The precise legal issue is therefore how that statutory relationship operates and whether the procedure followed in Kularatne’s case complied with the law.
The petitioner alleges that the appointment of the investigating officer, the inquiry process and the subsequent suspension were legally defective.
Those allegations have not yet been determined by the Court of Appeal.
Can Parliamentary Privilege Prevent Judicial Review?
A central issue in the proceedings is whether the decisions being challenged fall within an area protected from judicial scrutiny by parliamentary privilege.
Kularatne’s lawyers contend that privilege intended to protect Parliament’s legislative and deliberative functions cannot automatically extend to every administrative decision concerning its employees.
They argue that the Parliamentary Staff Advisory Committee is a statutory administrative body and that its decisions remain subject to the limits imposed by law.
On that reasoning, disciplinary measures affecting an employee should be capable of review where questions arise concerning statutory authority, procedural fairness or the principles of natural justice.
The Speaker’s side has raised preliminary objections concerning the maintainability of the application.
The Court must determine those objections and the relevant legal questions before any conclusion can be reached about the validity of the challenged disciplinary measures.
Secretary General’s Affidavit Features in Proceedings
Particular attention has been directed to an affidavit attributed to Secretary General of Parliament Kushani Rohanadeera.
According to submissions reported from the petitioner’s side, the affidavit indicates that disciplinary authority concerning parliamentary staff rests with the Secretary General, while the charge sheet and suspension in Kularatne’s case were issued following instructions from the Speaker.
The petitioner’s representatives have further maintained that the Secretary General expressed no objection to the interim relief sought in the application.
These matters were previously brought to the Court’s attention in support of Kularatne’s position.
The legal significance of the affidavit will depend on its full contents, the applicable statutory provisions and the submissions of the respondents.
It would be premature to treat the reported affidavit as establishing that the suspension was unlawful.
Suspension Challenged Since Earlier This Year
Kularatne was suspended from duty with effect from 23 January 2026.
The decision was attributed in earlier reporting to the Parliamentary Staff Advisory Committee, chaired by Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne, and was linked to allegations concerning irregularities in Kularatne’s appointment.
He subsequently filed a writ application seeking judicial intervention.
Earlier proceedings included discussions about the possibility of an amicable settlement.
The Attorney General’s Department later informed the Court that it would not represent the Speaker in the proceedings, while President’s Counsel K. Kanag-Isvaran appeared for the Speaker.
The application has since continued through hearings concerning its maintainability and the arguments advanced by the respective parties.
What Relief Is Kularatne Seeking?
Through his petition, Kularatne challenges the process that led to his suspension, including the appointment of the investigating officer and the resulting disciplinary measures.
He seeks judicial relief intended to invalidate the decisions he alleges were taken contrary to the applicable law and principles of natural justice.
The Court of Appeal has not yet determined whether those claims justify the orders sought.
Its consideration of the preliminary objections will be important in establishing whether, and on what basis, the challenged administrative actions can be examined through the writ jurisdiction.
Why the Proceedings Matter
The proceedings have implications beyond one parliamentary official’s employment dispute.
Parliament requires institutional independence to perform its constitutional functions. Its administrative officers must also operate within the legal framework governing their appointments, responsibilities and disciplinary authority.
The questions raised by Kularatne’s application concern how those two principles should operate together.
A judicial determination may help clarify the distinction between protected parliamentary functions and administrative actions affecting staff members.
For now, the competing legal positions remain before the Court of Appeal. Further submissions are scheduled for 6 November, when the bench is expected to continue examining the objections and arguments concerning the application.
