Abstract:
Crossing over to another party has become a trend in the political culture of Sri Lanka
today. Many crossovers of Members of Parliament (MPs) are incredulous to the public,
as such acts negate the sovereignty of the people. The Constitution of 1978 has
addressed this issue and Article 99 (13) (a) provides that if an MP ceases by expulsion,
his seat in the parliament also becomes vacant. An MP may be expelled from being a
member of a political party as a result of crossing over to another party. In a country
like Sri Lanka where political parties have become more important, an MP is considered
a mere cog in the wheel. However, the proviso of the same article enables the MP to
file a petition to the Supreme Court to determine that such expulsion was invalid. This
provision protects the autonomy of the MP while protecting the autonomy of the
political party. Ultimately, the Supreme Court has the authority to strike the appropriate
balance between the discipline of the political party and conscience of the MP.
However, the judicial view is changing and differs from time to time. Now, it is
considered to be narrowed. For instance, if the political party did not follow the rules
of natural justice in the expulsion, the Supreme Court allows an MP to remain in
parliament even after leaving his party. The action of the MP was not seriously looked
at. Therefore, this research aims to examine the nature of the right of an MP to crossover
to another party, focusing attention on the relevant constitutional provisions with
decided case law. This paper further investigates prevailing lacunas of Sri Lankan case
law. This is a normative research and the methodology of the study is based on
legislations and decided case law. The research also points out the way of controlling
crossovers by using party constitutions as well as by the judicial interpretation of the
Supreme Court. Finally, the conclusion would suggest that the right of an MP to
crossing over to another party is not an absolute right.
