The special Select Committee appointed to look into the determinations of the Supreme Court on the Anti-Conversion Bill, met on 04th November 2008 and discussed the final draft of the Bill to be presented to the Parliament.

When His Grace the Archbishop Oswald Gomis was informed on 01st November 2008 about the Select Committees meeting, His Grace soon informed the President of the Bishop Conference Bishop Vianney Fernando . His Grace having consulted the lawyers on behalf of the Catholic Church submitted the objections on certain sections of the Draft Bill, which violate the fundamental right to religious freedom assured in the Constitution of Sri Lanka.

The Catholic Bishops’ Conference also had an emergency meeting on 05th Nov. to discuss further.

The Supreme Court assembled on 06.08.2004 and 09.08.2004 for the hearing of the petitions against the Bill titled “ Prohibition of Forcible Conversion of Religion” which was presented as Private Member’s Bill and was placed on the Order Paper of Parliament on 21.07.2004.

21 petitions were presented to the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the Bill in terms of Article 121(1), invoking the jurisdiction of the Court for a determination in terms of Article 123 of the Constitution.

The purpose of the Bill is stated to be to provide prohibition of conversion from one religion to another by use of force or allurement or by fraudulent means and for means and matters incidental therewith or incidental thereto.

After hearing the submissions of the petitioners, Supreme Court gave its determinations and recommendations to the Parliament.

It is stated in the recommendations of the Supreme Court :
“ In view of our findings that clause 3 arid Clause 4(b) of the bill violate Article 10 of the Constitution the bill in its present form has to be passed by not less than 2/3'd of the whole number of members (including those not present) and approved by the people ct a referendum in terms of Article 83(a) of the Constitution.”

“ If clauses 3 and 4 (b) are deleted the bill will not be inconsistent with Article 10 of the Constitution. “

Clause4(a)
“ In view of the finding that Clause 4 (a) of the bill is violative of Article 12(1) of the constitution we recommend that the words "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary to any provision in the code of Criminal Procedure Act" in clause 4 (a) of the bill be deleted. We further recommend that item 11 of the schedule 1 referred to in the proviso to clause 4 (a) of the bill be deleted.”

Clause 5

“ We have come to a finding that clause 5 is arbitrary and irrational and violates Article 12(1) of the Constitution. In the event of Clause 5 being amended to specify that any institution of proceeding relating to the offences mentioned therein be instituted in accordance with the provisions of section 136 of the Criminal Procedure Act and subject to the written sanction of the Attorney-General, the inconsistency will cease to exist.”

“ As the primary objective of the bill is to prevent conversion of a person, from one religion to another by the use of force or allurement or by any fraudulent means, it is desirable to define the terms force, allurement or fraudulent means in relation to the primary objective of the bill.”