Jaffna District MP Archuna Ramanathan has requested the Court of Appeal to grant him permission to file limited objections in response to a petition challenging his eligibility to hold office as a Member of Parliament. The petition, filed by Oshala Herath, Chairman of the Abhinava Niwahal Peramuna, seeks an order to disqualify Ramanathan from his parliamentary position.
The petition alleges that Ramanathan violated the Parliamentary Elections Act by contesting the 2020 general election while still serving as a government doctor. According to Herath, Ramanathan failed to resign from his public service position before contesting the election, which breaches the eligibility criteria outlined in the Act. The petition further requests the Court of Appeal to issue an order invalidating Ramanathan’s parliamentary seat.
The matter was taken up today (15) before Court of Appeal Judge M. Gopallawa. During the hearing, Attorney-at-Law Senani Dayaratne, representing Ramanathan, argued that his client should be allowed to file objections against the allegations raised in the petition. Dayaratne emphasized the need to present evidence and arguments clarifying Ramanathan’s position and refuting claims of ineligibility.
However, due to the bench of judges not being properly constituted, Judge Gopallawa instructed Dayaratne to resubmit the request at the next hearing. The case was subsequently adjourned and scheduled to be heard again on January 31.
This legal battle has drawn significant attention as it raises critical questions about the eligibility of government employees to contest elections without resigning from their positions. The Parliamentary Elections Act requires that candidates holding public office must resign before declaring their candidacy to avoid conflicts of interest and ensure fairness in the electoral process.
Legal analysts note that the outcome of this case could set an important precedent for future election candidates who are government employees. Ramanathan’s legal team is expected to argue that the alleged procedural lapse does not warrant the disqualification of his parliamentary seat. Meanwhile, the petitioner maintains that adherence to the law is essential for maintaining the integrity of the electoral process.
The case continues to unfold, with both sides preparing to present detailed arguments at the upcoming hearing. If the court rules in favor of the petitioner, it could lead to significant political and legal ramifications, including a potential by-election to fill the contested seat.
