COLOMBO — The Court of Appeal heard arguments on November 6 challenging the suspension of former Deputy Secretary General and Chief of Staff of Parliament Chaminda Kularatne, as his legal counsel disputed attempts to shield parliamentary administrative decisions from judicial scrutiny.
President’s Counsel Sanjeeva Jayawardena, appearing for Kularatne, argued that the constitutional position of the Secretary General of Parliament and the statutory rights governing parliamentary staff cannot be overridden through the improper exercise of administrative or political authority.
The submissions were made in writ application No. CA (Writ) 109/2026, filed to challenge Kularatne’s suspension and the disciplinary process initiated against him.
The matter was heard before a two-judge bench comprising Court of Appeal President Justice Rohantha Abeysooriya and Justice K. P. Fernando, according to the account of proceedings provided.
Counsel for the petitioner addressed preliminary objections raised by respondents, including the Speaker of Parliament, concerning the Court’s jurisdiction to examine the disputed administrative decisions.
The proceedings have brought into focus the distinction between parliamentary privilege, the constitutional authority of the Secretary General and the legal protections available to parliamentary employees.
Constitutional Authority of the Secretary General
A central argument advanced by Jayawardena concerned the constitutional status and administrative independence of the Secretary General of Parliament.
Article 65 of the Sri Lankan Constitution establishes the office of Secretary General and provides for the appointment of parliamentary staff by the Secretary General with the approval of the Speaker.
The Secretary General serves as Parliament’s chief administrative officer, with responsibility for its institutional administration and the management of parliamentary personnel.
Jayawardena argued that these constitutional responsibilities could not be diminished by treating the Secretary General as merely a subordinate administrative functionary.
His submissions also addressed references to the historical designation Clerk to Parliament, a term originating from the British parliamentary system.
Counsel maintained that the terminology did not diminish the constitutional status of the Secretary General or the legal authority attached to that office.
Referring to parliamentary administrative practices recognised internationally, including those associated with the Inter-Parliamentary Union, he argued that the Secretary General’s responsibilities should be exercised within the framework established by the Constitution and applicable legislation.
The petitioner’s position is that interference with those responsibilities could undermine the institutional independence necessary for Parliament’s effective administration.
Background to Kularatne’s Suspension
Kularatne, an Attorney-at-Law who served as Deputy Secretary General and Chief of Staff, was suspended from his duties following an internal administrative process involving allegations concerning parliamentary affairs.
His suspension took effect on January 23, 2026.
A charge sheet was subsequently issued on February 2, containing allegations that Kularatne has denied.
The decision to suspend him was taken through the parliamentary Staff Advisory Committee, chaired by Speaker Dr. Jagath Wickramaratne.
Kularatne challenged the decision before the Court of Appeal, arguing that the disciplinary process was procedurally defective and inconsistent with the principles of natural justice.
His petition maintains that the investigation and subsequent administrative measures were undertaken without affording him the procedural protections required by law.
He has requested judicial relief to invalidate the suspension and associated disciplinary measures.
The respondents have contested the maintainability of the application, raising preliminary objections that include questions concerning parliamentary privilege and the Court’s authority to review the challenged decisions.
Can Parliamentary Privilege Prevent Judicial Review?
A significant part of the November 6 submissions concerned whether parliamentary privilege protects decisions relating to the employment and discipline of parliamentary staff from judicial scrutiny.
Jayawardena argued that privileges intended to safeguard Parliament’s legislative functions should not automatically extend to every administrative decision involving parliamentary personnel.
He distinguished between proceedings and functions associated with the legislature and administrative measures taken in relation to employees.
According to the petitioner’s position, disciplinary decisions must remain consistent with the Constitution, statutory requirements and established principles of procedural fairness.
Counsel also argued that the exercise of public authority carries legal responsibilities and cannot be treated as an unrestricted power.
The respondents’ preliminary objections raise the competing question of whether the disputed decisions fall within an area protected by parliamentary privilege.
Whether those objections prevent the Court from considering the merits of Kularatne’s challenge remains a matter for judicial determination.
The Staff Advisory Committee’s Legal Status
The authority of Parliament’s Staff Advisory Committee also featured prominently in the arguments.
Jayawardena challenged the proposition that the Committee could invoke parliamentary privilege to prevent judicial examination of its administrative decisions.
His argument distinguished the Staff Advisory Committee from parliamentary committees established under the Standing Orders to conduct legislative business.
However, the Staff Advisory Committee itself has a statutory foundation under the Parliamentary Staffs Act, No. 9 of 1953.
The Act provides a framework for parliamentary staff administration and includes provisions concerning disciplinary authority and conditions of service.
The petitioner’s argument therefore concerns the scope of the Committee’s powers and whether decisions made under that framework are subject to judicial review.
Counsel maintained that statutory administrative bodies must act within their lawful authority and comply with the principles of natural justice.
The Court has not yet determined whether the challenged suspension was unlawful or whether the respondents’ objections to judicial review should succeed.
Senior President’s Counsel Represent Both Sides
Several senior lawyers have appeared in the proceedings, reflecting the legal and institutional questions raised by the application.
According to the supplied account, representation includes:
- For petitioner Chaminda Kularatne: President’s Counsel Sanjeeva Jayawardena.
- For the second respondent, the Speaker of Parliament: President’s Counsel K. Kanag-Isvaran.
- For the third and fifth respondents: President’s Counsel Nigel Hatch.
- For the thirteenth respondent: President’s Counsel Upul Kumarapperuma.
- For other respondents: A legal team including President’s Counsel Ali Sabry, Uditha Igalahewa, Sanje Rajaratnam, Manohara de Silva, Kuvera de Zoysa and Thisath Wijegunwardena.
The Court of Appeal is scheduled to resume proceedings on November 17 and 18, when further submissions are expected from lawyers representing the respondents, including those appearing for the Secretary General and Assistant Secretary General of Parliament.
Wider Implications for Parliamentary Administration
The proceedings raise important questions about the relationship between Parliament’s constitutional independence, its internal administrative structures and the supervisory jurisdiction of the courts.
While parliamentary privilege protects the legislature in carrying out its constitutional responsibilities, the extent to which those protections apply to employment and disciplinary decisions is central to the dispute.
The petition also places the legal authority of the Secretary General and the procedural rights of parliamentary staff under examination.
Any determination concerning the validity of Kularatne’s suspension will depend on the Court’s assessment of the applicable constitutional and statutory provisions, the respondents’ objections and the circumstances surrounding the administrative decisions.
With further arguments scheduled for November 17 and 18, the Court has yet to determine whether the disputed disciplinary measures can withstand judicial scrutiny.
