Sri Lanka President Calls for Review of Supreme Court Ruling on Gender Equality Bill

Sri Lanka’s President Ranil Wickremesinghe has proposed the formation of a select committee to scrutinize the Supreme Court’s ruling on the ‘Gender Equality’ Bill, sparking controversy and opposition from numerous MPs. The Supreme Court ruled that the bill’s enactment contradicts Article 12 of the Constitution.

President Wickremesinghe expressed his disagreement, accusing the court of “judicial cannibalism” for disregarding previous judgments and an amendment to the penal code by the Chief Justice. The President highlighted the bill’s aim to ensure equal opportunities for all, irrespective of sex or gender identity, in the Buddhist-majority nation of 22 million people.

Wickremesinghe further argued that the court’s determination challenges the Priven Education Bill and asserted that the House could not concur with the apex court’s decision. However, MP Wimal Weerawansa expressed concern about challenging the Supreme Court’s rulings, questioning the purpose of having a top court if its decisions are repeatedly contested. He acknowledged the importance of granting equal rights to women and individuals with gender-related conditions but cautioned against providing legal provisions for what he termed a “gender equality mafia,” referencing concerns about the potential for same-sex marriage legalization and associated practices prevalent in Western countries.

TNA MP MA Sumanthiran echoed Weerawansa’s sentiment, suggesting that referring the bill for re-determination rather than establishing select committees to review every Supreme Court ruling is a more appropriate course of action.

The petitioners against the bill had argued that a particular clause, if passed, would enable same-sex marriage, a move they considered culturally insensitive for various communities. The three-member Supreme Court bench concurred, finding that allowing same-sex marriage would be constitutionally and culturally unacceptable. Consequently, the court ruled that enacting the bill without amending the contentious clauses would require a two-thirds parliamentary majority and a referendum.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top