90
S ri Lanka Law Reports
120001 2 Sri LR.
purpose of the disqualification contemplated by Section 70( 1)(d).
The National State Assembly was empowered to do this by the
provisions of Section 73(f) but chose not to do so. Therefore,
Counsel contend, the question of disqualification by reason of
contract does not arise for decision. It is as simple as that. A
provision such as the one in Section 70( 1) (d) is one that is
enacted for “securing the Freedom and Independence of
Parliament” (Vide 22 Geo. iii c. 45 of 1782) and to secure" the
independence of members of the Legislature and their freedom
from any conflict between their duty to the public and their
private interests" (per de KretserJ. in Dahanciyake us. Pieris121
at 394.) That the National State Assembly deliberately left wide
open the doors of corruption for its members is not a
proposition we can lightly entertain. We have had a healthy
tradition in this regard and it is unthinkable that any
fundamental departure from this tradition of maintaining
honesty and purity in public life has been made in the 1972
Constitution. By 1972 numerous State Corporations had
come into existence regulating and servicing wide areas of
public life. Since their activities touched the lives of the people
at many points, sometimes even bringing about contractual
relations in respect of their ordinary day to day activities, there
was undoubtedly a need for a clear-cut decision as to what
contracts and what interests should or should not constitute
a disqualification for candidates to Parliament. If there was
any intention to do away with this particular disqualification,
we would not have expected to find a provision like Section
70(1 )(d) incorporated in the Constitution. This Section, far
from doing away with such a disqualification, appears to have
added to its ambit and now contains the twin concepts of State
and Corporation, where previously only one term “Crown"
existed. What appears to have been left to the Legislature,
considering the wider context of State regulation now in
existence was the duty to demarcate the limit beyond
which such contractual relations should constitute a
disqualification for membership in the House. Over seven
years have passed, and two successive Parliaments have still