sc
Arjuna Ranatunga v Johnston Fernando
Minister of Youth Affairs and Others
255
ARJUNA RANATUNGAvJOHNSTON FERNANDOMINISTER OF YOUTH AFFAIRS AND OTHERSSUPREME COURTS. N. SILVA, C. J.
J.A.N. DE SILVA, J.
WEERASURIYA, J.
SC FR 133/2002NOVEMBER 20, 2002
Fundamental Rights – Articlet 2 (1), 12(2), 14(1)gand 126 – Sports Law No.25 of 1973 – Disqualifying Members of Parliament being office bearers insports associations – Violation ?
The Gazette Notification purporting to amend regulation 14 promulgated underthe Sports Law by disqualifying Members of Parliament, Provincial Council,Municipal Council, Urban Council, Pradeshiya Sabha or any other LocalAuthority was challenged by the petitioner a former Sri Lanka Cricket Captainand Member of Parliament on the ground that the fundamental rightsguaranteed to him by Art 12 (1), 12 (2) and 14 (g) have been infringed by theexecutive.
256
Sri Lanka Law Reports
12004) 3 Sri L.R
It was contended by the respondents that, the new regulation was introducedto depoliticize the sports associations – to keep politicians away from becomingoffice bearers of sports bodies.
Held :
The regulation as reflected in the gazette permits politicians to hold officein the Sports Associations but only precludes Members of Parliamentand local bodies set out in the gazette from holding office. There aremany politicians who are not necessarily Members of Parliaments.
A candidate who gets defeated at any election could hold office but not asuccessful candidate.
Per J. A. N. de Silva, J.
"I am of the view that the registration is unduly and unfairly restrictive of therights of the Members of Parliament, Provincial Councils and LocalAuthorities to be elected as office bearers of sports associations."
The regulation published contains a classification which is arbitrary, and isdevoid of any substantial basis.
J. A. N. de Silva, J.
"De politicization of sports associations being a desirable object can beachieved by freeing the democratically elected sports bodies ofinterference or under influence from those who wield governmental power."
APPLICATION under Article 126 of the Constitution.
Romesh de Silva PC with Dinal Philips and Hiran de Alwis for petitioner.
Saieem Marsoof PC Add. Solicitor General and S. Herath State Counselfor respondents.
Cur. adv. vult.
January 10, 2003J. A. N. DE SILVA, J.
The petitioner, Arjuna Ranatunga, represented his school 01Ananda College, his club, the Sinhalese Sports Club and Sri Lankaat cricket. He played 93 Test Matches and 269 One DayInternationals for Sri Lanka and was the captain of the Sri Lankateam which won the world cup held in 1996. in August 2000 heretired from Test Cricket.
sc
Arjuna Ranatunga v Johnston Fernando
Minister of Youth Affairs and Others
(J. A. N. de Silva, J.)
257
The petitioner states that for several years he has beeninterested in getting involved in the administration of cricket. Afterhe retired from Test Cricket the Interim Committee which functionedin the year 2001 invited him to serve in the Cricket Committee tolook after cricket and cricketers. During this period at variousfunctions and press interviews he has expressed his desire tocontest the presidency of the Board of Control for Cricket in SriLanka with a view to develop the infrastructure facilities for cricketin this country, mainly to help the out-station cricketers.
The Parliament of the Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka wasdissolved in or about October 2001 and a general election was heldin December the same year. The petitioner too contested thedistrict of Colombo from the Peoples Alliance Party and wassuccessful. He received the second highest number of preferentialvotes in the Colombo District and presently is an elected Memberof Parliament. The petitioner states that even after the generalelection he has been making several statements to the pressdeclaring his intention of contesting the impeding election of theBoard of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka (BCCSL).
Immediately after the formation of the new government ahundred day development programme was launched. As anintegral part of this programme, the Minister in charge of Sportswith the concurrence of the Cabinet of Ministers decided to amendthe existing sports laws in the country.
Consequently the 1st respondent the Minister of Youth Affairsand Sports caused a gazette notification bearing No. 1222/16 to bepublished on 7th February 2002 purporting to amend regulation 14promulgated under the Sports Law No. 25 ot 1973 by adding thefollowing new paragraph to the list of disqualifications.
"(g) If he is a Member of Parliament, Provincial Council,Municipal Council, Urban Council, Pradeshiya Sabha or any otherlocal authority."
The petitioner contends that by virtue of the said gazette the 1strespondent purports to preclude, inter alia, Members of Parliamentbeing disqualified to be office bearers in "Sports Associations."
10
20
30
40
258
Sri Lanka Law Reports
[2004] 3 Sri L.R
Complaining that the fundamental rights guaranteed to him byArticles 12 (1), 12 (2) and 14 (1) (g) of the Constitution have beeninfringed by the executive, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction ofthis court under Article 126 of the Constitution.
At the hearing of this application, learned counsel for thepetitioner Mr. Romesh de Silva, P. C. raised the following mattersfor consideration of this court.
That:
The action of the 1st respondent is arbitrary, capricious, 50wrongful, unjust and unreasonable.
The decision of the 1st respondent to publish the saidregulation is maia-fide and that the petitioner had been singled outwith a view to prevent him from contesting the presidency of theBCCSL.
The regulation is violative of and discriminatory towards allsportsmen and women in that no restrictions are placed on theother professions and disciplines in becoming members ofParliament.
The regulation is ultra-vires the powers given to the 60Minister.
The regulation is violative of sections 31 and 41 of theSports Law No. 25 of 1973.
Supporting the 1st ground of objections learned counsel for thepetitioner submitted that the petitioner relies on grounds of equalitybefore the law contained in Article 12 (1) and 12 (2) as the basis ofthis application to court.
Article 12 of the Constitution lays down the general rule ofequality, that all persons are equal before the law and that nocitizen shall be discriminated against on grounds of race, religion, 70language, caste, sex, political opinion, place of birth or any of suchgrounds. There are several decided cases in Sri Lanka, India andother jurisdictions where the principles relating to "equal protection"have been identified, recognized and applied. It is to be noted that,
(1) The principle of equality does not mean that every law musthave universal application for all who are not by nature, attainment
SQArjuna Ranatunga v Johnston Fernando259
Minister of Youth Affairs and Others
(J. A. N. de Silva, J.)
or circumstances, in the same position, as the varying needs ofdifferent classes of persons need separate treatment.
This principle does not take away from the state the powerof classifying persons for legitimate purposes.
Every classification is in some degree likely to producesome inequality and mere production of inequality is not enough.
If a law deals equally with members of a well-defined classit is not obnoxious and it is not open to the charge of denial of equalprotection on the grounds that it has no application to otherpersons.
While reasonable classification is permissible suchclassification must be based upon some real and substantialdistinction bearing a reasonable and just relation to the objectsought to be attained and the classification cannot be madearbitrarily and without any substantial basis (vide Basu onConstitutional Law of India).
To pass the test of permisible classification two conditions mustbe fulfilled:
That the classification must be founded on intelligibledifferentia which distinguishes persons or things that are groupedtogether from others left out of the group. And,
That the differentia must have a rational relation to theobject sought to be achieved by the statute/regulation in question.What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basisof classification and the object of the regulation underconsideration.
When a "law" is challenged as denying equal protection, thequestion for determination by the court is not whether it hasresulted in inequality, but whether there is some difference whichbears a just and reasonable relation to the object of thestatute/regulation. To attract the operation of Article 12 (1) it isnecessary to show that the selection or differentiation isunreasonable. "Article 12 nullifies sophisticated as well as simpleminded modes of discrimination" – (Sharvananda, J. inPalihawadana v Attorney General page 14).
80
90
100
110
260
Sri Lanka Law Reports
[2004] 3 Sri L.R
Mr. Marsoof, P.C, Additional Solicitor General, who appearedfor the respondents endeavored to explain the object behind theregulation in question. It was his submission that in the past officebearers of sports associations who were "politicians" used politicalinfluence in selection of sportsmen and women for national andinternational events and thereby caused grave injustice to personswho did not have any political backing. Learned counsel submittedthat the new regulation was introduced to 'de-politicize' the sportsassociations. In other words to keep politicians away from 120becoming office bearers of sports bodies.
Mr. Marsoof drew the attention of court to a report prepared andsubmitted by the committee of inquiry to the Minister who was incharge of Parliamentary Affairs and Sports in 1971 where there isa recommendation that politics and sports should be kept apart asit had been alleged that there is bureaucratic and politicalinterference in sports. The learned Additional Solicitor Generalfurther submitted that in the recent past there were severalMembers of Parliament who held office in National SportsAssociations such as BCCSL, Boxing Association, Volleyball 130Federation and Table Tennis Association.
Learned Additional Solicitor General contended that the presentgovernment having taken the aforesaid factors into consideration inits election manifesto at the general election held on the 5th ofDecember 2001, pledged to the people that it would take steps tode-politicize sports administrations by the introduction of new lawsto ensure proper administration of sports associations. In order toachieve this objective of de-politicization of sports administrationthe 1st respondent took steps to amend the regulations madeunder the Sports Law with the 100 day programme introduced by 140the government.
It is to be noted that the committee report referred to by Mr.Marsoof is in 1971 and is long prior to the enactment of Sports LawNo. 25 of 1973. The then Minister of Sports and the legislaturehaving considered the recommendation of the committee reportenacted the Sports Law in 1973. A number of disqualifications havebeen set out in that law with regard to the persons who wish to beelected for sports bodies. Political views or political colour of the
SqArjuna Ranatunga v Johnston Fernando261
Minister of Youth Affairs and Others
(J. A. N. de Silva, J.)
person to be elected has been deliberately omitted from the list ofdisqualifications. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted thatthere is no logic, reason or justification for the decision of the 1strespondent that a Member of Parliament should not hold office insports associations. In the past Dr. N. M. Perera, J. R.Jayawardena, Gamini Dissanayake, Tyronne Fernando, T. B.Werapitiya, Laxman Jayakody held office as the presidents of theBCCSL and discharged their duties well even though they weremembers of Parliament. There were no allegations made againstany of the said members that they did not or could not dischargetheir duties properly by virtue of the fact that they were Members ofParliament.
The question that arises for consideration is whether theobjective of de-politicization has been achieved by this regulationby placing a restriction on the Members of Parliament and otherlocal bodies from contesting for positions in the sports associations.
There are many politicians who are not necessarily Members ofParliament. For example Chairman of a political party, the GeneralSecretary, Members of Executive Committees and CentralCommittees of political parties.
The regulation as reflected in the gazette permits politicians tohold office in the sports association but only precludes Members ofParliament and local bodies set out in the gazette from holdingoffice. A candidate who gets defeated at any election could holdoffice, but not a successful candidate. If the petitioner was notsuccessful in becoming a Member of Parliament he could haveheld office in the BCCSL. I am of the view that the regulation inquestion is unduly and unfairly restrictive of the rights of theMembers of Parliament, Provincial Councils and Local Authoritiesto be elected as office bearers of sports associations. De-politicization of sports associations being a desirable objective canbe achieved by freeing the democratically elected sports bodies ofinterference or undue influence from those who wield governmentalpower.
Having considered all the above circumstances I hold that theregulation published by the 1 st respondent contains a classification
150
160
170
180
262
Sri Lanka Law Reports
12004J 3 Sri L.R
which is arbitrary and is devoid of any substantial basis. And forthat reason is violative of the fundamental rights of the petitionerenshrined in the Constitution in Article 12 (1), 12 (2) and 14 (1) (g).However as no election for the BCCSL has been held afterpromulgation of the regulation, no real harm had been caused tothe petitioner. Therefore I do not award him damages but he will be 190entitled to Rs. 50,000/- as costs payable by the respondents.
S. N. SILVA, C. J.- I agree.
WEERASUR1YA, J.- I agree.
Relief granted.
