Chaos in Lanka parliament as Speaker comes under siege
Colombo, Nov 15 : Violent scenes were witnessed in the Sri Lankan Parliament on Thursday as agitated lawmakers loyal to President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa surrounded the Speaker in his chair after the premier, who lost a floor test, demanded fresh elections to resolve the political turmoil.
Trouble erupted when Speaker Karu Jayasuriya agreed to a request from ousted premier Ranil Wickremesinghe's United National Party that a vote be taken on a statement made by Rajapaksa demanding fresh polls.
Jayasuriya had allowed Rajapaksa to make a statement as a member of parliament after stating that he does not recognise the claim of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) leader who lost a no-confidence motion on Wednesday.
"I was the president and premier, so this prime minister's post is not important," Rajapaksa said.
"I urge all 225 members to join me in calling for a fresh election. We want a general election," he said, adding that a fresh election was the best way to resolve the crisis.
UNP legislator Lakshman Kiriella urged Jayasuriya to take a vote by name, showing the loss of confidence over Rajapaksa's remarks.
Jayasuriya asked the House if it agreed and with resounding voices of 'Aye' he proceeded to take the vote. He was immediately surrounded by Sirisena and Rajapaksa's MPs who were protesting against Jayasuriya's decision to take the vote.
"I am the Speaker and I decide," Jayasuriya told the angry lawmakers as UNP MPs formed a ring around the Speaker's chair to shield Jayasuriya.
"They are trying to assault the Speaker," UNP legislator Harsha de Silva tweeted from the House.
Objects were thrown at the Speaker's chair and at least one MP was seen leaving the chamber bleeding, an official said.
The commotion continued for about half an hour before Jayasuriya adjourned the House.
"We are the lawful government and we will sit in the government benches today," Ajith P Perera, a senior UNP legislator said earlier. The UNP had sat on the opposition benches during the no-trust vote.
Rajapaksa's side has disputed the no-trust motion, saying proper procedure was not followed and accused Jayasuriya of bias towards his own party.
Since the Speaker had ruled that Rajapaksa had no majority, Wickremesinghe remains the lawful premier, the UNP claimed.
The UNP said they would boycott a meeting called by Sirisena with political parties which backed the motion against Rajapaksa on Wednesday. This was after a strongly-worded letter from Sirisena to Jayasuriya last night.
Sirisena, in response to an official communique by Jayasuriya on the vote in parliament, told the Speaker that a prime minister does not necessarily require a parliamentary majority, that Jayasuriya had violated parliamentary procedures and standing orders of parliament in conducting the no-trust motion against Rajapaksa, and that he as president was the sole authority in appointing a prime minister.
Parliament on Wednesday passed the no-confidence motion against Rajapaksa who was installed by as premier by Sirisena in a controversial move, after the Supreme Court overturned the presidential decree to dissolve the House and hold snap polls on January 5.
Amid raucous scenes, Parliament on Wednesday met for the first time since October 26, when Sirisena sacked premier Wickremesinghe, installed Rajapaksa in his place and suspended the House, plunging the island nation into an unprecedented Constitutional crisis.
The vote of no confidence against Rajapaksa has further complicated the political crisis as the former strongman has rejected the outcome of the floor test. It is not yet clear whether Rajapaksa will resign or whether the ousted Wickremesinghe, who has the support of 122 lawmakers, will return to power.
The passing of the no-confidence motion comes as a major blow to Sirisena and is a victory for Wickremesinghe.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
'Fraud on Constitution': SC rules against religious conversion for quota benefits
New Delhi (PTI): In a significant verdict, the Supreme Court has said religious conversions undertaken solely to avail reservation benefits without genuine belief amounted to a "fraud on the Constitution".
Justices Pankaj Mithal and R Mahadevan passed the verdict on November 26 in a case filed by one C Selvarani and upheld a Madras High Court decision of January 24 denying a scheduled caste certificate to a woman who converted to Christianity but later claimed to be a Hindu to secure employment benefits.
Justice Mahadevan, who wrote the 21-page verdict for the bench, further underscored that one converted to a different religion, when they were genuinely inspired by its principles, tenets and spiritual thoughts.
"However, if the purpose of conversion is largely to derive the benefits of reservation but not with any actual belief in the other religion, the same cannot be permitted, as the extension of benefits of reservation to people with such ulterior motives will only defeat the social ethos of the policy of reservation,” he noted.
The evidence presented before the bench was found to have clearly demonstrated that the appellant professed Christianity and actively practiced the faith by attending church regularly.
"Despite the same, she claims to be a Hindu and seeks for a SC community certificate for the purpose of employment," it noted.
"Such a dual claim made by her," said the bench "was untenable and she cannot continue to identify herself as a Hindu after baptism".
The top court, therefore, held the conferment of scheduled caste communal status to the woman, who was a Christian by faith, but claimed to be still embracing Hinduism only for the purpose of availing reservation in employment, "would go against the very object of reservation and would amount to fraud on the Constitution".
The top court underlined a religious conversion solely to access reservation benefits, without genuine belief in the adopted religion, undermined the fundamental social objectives of the quota policy and her actions were contrary to the spirit of reservation policies aimed at uplifting the marginalised communities.
Selvarani, born to a Hindu father and a Christian mother, was baptised as a Christian shortly after birth but later claimed to be a Hindu and sought an SC certificate to apply for an upper division clerk position in Puducherry in 2015.
While her father belonged to the Valluvan caste, categorised under scheduled castes, he had converted to Christianity, as confirmed by documentary evidence.
The verdict said the appellant continued to practice Christianity, as seen by the regular church attendance, making her claim of being a Hindu untenable.
The bench noted individuals converting to Christianity lose their caste identity and must provide compelling evidence of reconversion and acceptance by their original caste to claim SC benefits.
The judgement said there was no substantial evidence of the appellant's reconversion to Hinduism or acceptance by the Valluvan caste.
Her claims lacked public declarations, ceremonies, or credible documentation to substantiate her assertions, it pointed out.
"One converts to a different religion when genuinely inspired by its principles. Conversion purely for reservation benefits, devoid of belief, is impermissible," the bench held.
The apex court opined in any case, upon conversion to Christianity, one lost their caste and couldn't be identified by it.
"As the factum of reconversion is disputed, there must be more than a mere claim. The conversion had not happened by any ceremony or through 'Arya Samaj'. No public declaration was effected. There is nothing on record to show that she or her family has reconverted to Hinduism and on the contrary, there is a factual finding that the appellant still professes Christianity,” it noted.
The bench said there was evidence against the appellant, and therefore, her contention raised that the caste would be under eclipse upon conversion and resumption of the caste upon reconversion, was "unsustainable".
