It was no easy task to compile this. Only a handful ordinary citizens would have the expertise to search for this information online, or elsewhere. There is no easy record retrieval of the President’s attendance in Parliament on its official website. But what is immediately obvious when the scattered media reports are taken as a whole is that the 18th Amendment has in no way at all contributed to a more accountable Executive. ”

Excerpt from ‘Months after the 18th Amendment: Is the Executive really more accountable to Parliament?’, http://groundviews.org/2011/06/11/months-after-the-18th-amendment-is-the-executive-really-more-accountable-to-parliament/

It is indeed terrifying and demoralizing to see the backward slide of our nation from a democracy to a dictatorship. We have never seen, in the course of our history, the likes of such unprincipled governance and self seeking deception by a leadership cloaked in the finery of patriotism and national interest.

Even more distressing is the timidity and servility of the majority of the legislature, judiciary, public sector, private sector, religious institutions and media in expressing their very serious misgivings over the craftily concocted interpretations provided by the state in defending the proposed changes.

So for that reason, it’d be good if we’re reliably informed what kind of discussion is clearly permissible (and what, instead, is a gray area, and what is “black”). I mean, what kind of discussion, here on Groundviews, about this Determination. (Although, I do hope my question/comment doesn’t lead to the discussion going off-topic; GV: if you think it likely, pls feel free to remove this post.)

So I’ve tried to find online versions, and found some. I’m fairly sure these links I’ve suggested ARE the correct and official ones, but disclaimer: these are correct only to the best of my “legal-field limited” knowledge, and are provided only with my best intentions. Perhaps Groundviews could check the accuracy and then confirm, before aproving this comment?

1) The Constitution with all the amendments (upto and including the 17th) included:
* background/general info/other info: http://www.parliament.lk/about_us/constitution.jsp
* the Constitution itself, the version which includes 17th Amendment: http://www.parliament.lk/about_us/constitution.pdf

2) Parliament’s standing orders:
* background info: http://www.parliament.lk/about_us/standing_orders.jsp
* the Standing Orders document itself: http://www.parliament.lk/about_us/Standing_Orders_English.pdf
Relevant due to the arguments brought up by some petitioner(s), and a point of order raised by some Members (Sumanthiran; & probably also Ravi K & Ranil W), regarding Provincial Councils (more info at http://transcurrents.com/tc/2010/09/18th_constitutional_amendment.html )

3) The 17th Amendment itself, might be useful (since the judgment/Determination refers to it and/or some of its provisions) :
* http://www.priu.gov.lk/Cons/1978Constitution/SeventeenthAmendment.html
* But is there an (official) PDF version, easier to read and/or print?

4) The “18th Amendment” version which this judgment/Determination refers to. That is, I would assume, the one that was presented to the Supreme Court (and the petitioners) at the time that Court proceedings began, as I understand (disclaimer: my understanding may be mistaken).
Is there an official copy of this available to us members of the public?

5) The “absolutely final” 18th Amendment version:
According to http://www.dailymirror.lk/print/index.php/news/front-page-news/20995-161-in-favour-and-17-against-.html , “Several amendments were introduced to the 18th Amendment during the committee stage of the debate in parliament yesterday.” … and ” … “The amendments were presented by House Leader Nimal Siripala De Silva”

I assume, then, that THIS is the version that was “voted upon” and (assuming that one accepts the legitimacy of the proceedings) was passed. If so, is there a copy of that available to us? This would be a later version than 4) above.

6) 18th Amendment, earlier DRAFT version: The version/draft which is earlier than 4) above.
I.e., as best as I understood from recent news coverage, it was the day before (or, the evening/night before?) the Court proceedings, that an earlier draft of the 18th Amendment was sent to the Court and was also made available to the petitioners (or the few petitioners who got to know about it on time). While again recognizing that my understanding may be mistaken, my understanding is that the petitioners (or anyone else of the public, I assume) had only had access to THIS version (draft), until Court proceedings began. Perhaps it would be useful if we of the public can also see this version — is it available?

(Gosh, we public sure are asking for a lot aren’t we, whining citizenry that we are!)

Aside: when using these for the purpose of better understanding/reading the judgment/Determination itself, I would suppose that 5) and 6) are not as relevant as 4). Although, 5) in particular, is certainly somewhat relevant.

7) Miscellaneous, and possibly a bit way out except to the more Law-Savvy among you:

* Ideally, it’d also be good to have available copies of all other documents referred to in the Determination; e.g., other judgments cited. (e.g., to understand the original context of such citations.)

* Suitable summaries of the petitioners’ arguments. (e.g. Groundview’s post of http://www.groundviews.org/2010/09/02/the-18th-amendment-to-the-constitution-process-and-substance/ )
Ideally, also, original full copies of those arguments; I guess that’d be their written submissions or whatever they’re called, and hopefully transcripts of what they actually said.

* anything else?

Therefore, Constitution of SL is meaningless to Tamils; something forced down their throats. This undemocratic venture of the Sinhalese was unpunished but rewarded by Britain, the former colonial master and the West. Instead, the West offered “Sweets” !

Consequently, there was no remorsefulness for the evil and undemocratic act. Things started to worsen democratically.

In its journey on semi-totalitarianism against Tamils, the Sinhalese, corporately, took away the freedoms and rights of people of Tamil Eelam(TE), a de facto state, established after the people of TE mandated in 1977 democratically to liberate it.

Internal political agreements with the people of TE were repeatedly and deliberately violated. Human Rights and Humanitarian law conventions by the UN, to which SL was a signatory were deliberately violated.

All these unconstitutional and undemocratic manifestations by the governments were received by the Sinhalese with cheers and jubilations because they were beneficiaries and their Sinhala ego was boosted, a reason why Mahinda Rajapakse was given majority in the last elections.

Now Rajapakse has decided to knock at the door of Sinhalese with Totalitarianism and the 18th amendment to the constitution is the first step.

What the Sinhalese did unto Tamils has come upon themselves.