92 Sri Lanka Law Reports 120001 2 Sri LR. voting in Parliament. Further he contended that the marginal note and the wording of the Article and its contents all make this clear. According to Mr. Choksy “such matters" as contained in Article 101 (1) is clearly a reference to the matters covered by Article 101(1) only and the Parliament passed the necessary laws to provide for such matters when it enacted the Registration of Electors Act, No. 44 of 1980 and the Parliamentary Elections Act, No. 1 of 1981. With regard to this submission of Mr. Choksy, it would appear that to place such a restriction on the operation of Article 101(1) would be to do violence to the intention of the framers of the Constitution., As stated above the necessary law to cover both points of time, namely, at the time of election or at the time of sitting and voting have to be made in terms of Article 101(1) and more specifically in terms of Article 101 ( l)(i). This was the view expressed by the Supreme Court in the case of Dahanayake vs. De Silvafsupra) in relation to the 1972 Constitution, where it was stated very clearly that Section 73(f) of the 1972 Constitution was the empowering provision to create the law for the purpose of disqualification contemplated by Section 70(l)(d). It should be noted that sitting and voting is a necessary or incidental consequence to the election of members to the National State Assembly or to the Parliament. In addition in that case, the argument advanced by Counsel to place a restriction with regard to the operation of Section 73 to procedural matters as opposed to the creation of necessary substantive law was rejected. The Court in that case accepted the position that two of the items in respect of which laws can be made by the National State Assembly was section 73(e) the grounds for avoiding elections, and section 73(f) such other matters as are necessary or incidental to the election of members to the National State Assembly: Provided, however, that a law made under this section shall not add to the disqualifications enumerated in Section 70. Therefore on the strength of this reasoning by the Supreme Court, we are of the view that it would not be correct to place the restriction as suggested by Mr. Choksy on Article 101(1) namely that it deals