Bandaranaike v. Attorney General – sllr 1982 volume 2 page 786

In BANDARANAIKE v. ATTORNEY‑GENERAL, the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of a Bill to amend the Constitution by extending the term of the first Parliament. The central issue concerned whether the Bill, certified as urgent by the Cabinet and passed with a special majority, complied with constitutional requirements, including the cessation of further judicial jurisdiction after Cabinet certification. It was held that the Bill had been duly referred and determined in accordance with Articles 83, 84, 85, 120, 122, 123, and 132 of the Constitution. The Court reaffirmed that its jurisdiction terminates upon Cabinet certification under Article 120 (Proviso (b)), and objections relating to alleged errors or divisiveness in Court reasoning are without merit. This decision reinforces