Kumaranatunga v. Jayakody and Another – sllr 1984 volume 2 page 045

Brief
In Kumaranatunge v. Jayakody and Another, the court examined whether an election petition against the Mahara election outcome was maintainable, specifically focusing on allegations of corrupt practices by the 2nd respondent (the President). It was held that such proceedings are precluded by the constitutional immunity conferred on the President under Article 35(1) of the Constitution. The legal analysis reaffirmed that constitutional provisions take precedence over subordinate legislation, including the Elections Order-in-Council (1946), particularly regarding the necessity of joining the President as a party and the criteria for election petitions alleging corrupt practices. The decision clarified the standard for complying with affidavit requirements under election law, underscorin