Court of Appeal Hears Legal Challenge Against MP Archchuna Ramanathan’s Eligibility

 

Petitioner Alleges Breach of Elections Act; State Highlights Constitutional Conflict

The Court of Appeal today began hearings into a Writ of Quo Warranto application filed against Parliamentarian Archchuna Ramanathan, questioning his legal authority to continue holding office as a Member of Parliament. The application, which raises serious constitutional and ethical implications, was filed by Oshala Herath, leader of the Abhinawa Niwahal Peramuna.

Herath contends that MP Ramanathan submitted his nomination papers for the most recent general election while still serving as a government medical officer. According to Herath, this act contravenes the Parliamentary Elections Act, which requires public officers to formally resign from government service before contesting parliamentary elections.

The case was taken up before a two-judge bench comprising Justices Mayadunne Corea and Mahen Gopallawa. Counsel N.K. Ashokbharan, appearing for the Petitioner, submitted that MP Ramanathan is constitutionally disqualified from sitting in Parliament, citing Article 66(e) of the Constitution. This provision disallows public officers from being elected to Parliament or continuing to hold a parliamentary seat unless they have ceased to hold public office prior to nomination.

Ashokbharan further argued that, as Ramanathan never tendered a formal resignation, he remains a public officer and is therefore ineligible to be an MP. The Counsel also requested interim relief, urging the Court to prevent Ramanathan from functioning as a Member of Parliament until a final decision is rendered.

Representing the State, Additional Solicitor General Sumathi Dharmawardhana PC confirmed that MP Ramanathan is still technically considered a public officer. Dharmawardhana drew attention to a constitutional quandary arising from this situation, referencing Article 55(3), which assigns disciplinary authority over public officers to the Public Service Commission (PSC). However, he noted that under Article 55(5), a sitting Member of Parliament exercises supervisory control over the PSC, creating a clear conflict of interest.

"This presents a serious constitutional tension," Dharmawardhana submitted, "wherein an interdicted public officer, now acting as a legislator, holds oversight over the very institution responsible for adjudicating his disciplinary matters."

The Court took note of the submissions and adjourned proceedings until July 2, 2025, allowing time for legal counsel representing MP Ramanathan to file their responses.

Counsel N.K. Ashokbharan, assisted by Shenal Fernando, appeared for the Petitioner. Senani Dayaratne, with Nishadi Wickramasinghe, represented MP Archchuna Ramanathan. Additional Solicitor General Sumathi Dharmawardhana PC appeared on behalf of the State.

As the case unfolds, it could set a significant precedent regarding the eligibility criteria for public officers seeking elected office and reinforce the separation of powers between Parliament and public administration mechanisms.