Emergency Powers, Constitutional Order, and Moral Legitimacy: Reflections on Sri Lanka’s 2018 Crisis

Abstract

The 2018 constitutional crisis in Sri Lanka represents a critical turning point in the country’s post-1978 constitutional history, raising profound questions about the scope of executive emergency powers and the effectiveness of constitutional checks and balances. The study critically examines the legal and political dimensions of emergency – style executive action during the crisis, focusing on the interpretation of presidential powers, parliamentary sovereignty and judicial review. Research problem is to what extent did the exercise of presidential power during Sri Lanka’s 2018 constitutional crisis expose structural weaknesses in constitutional checks and balance particularly regarding emergency style executive authority under the post 1978 constitutional framework? The research main objective of this study is to analyze how the 2018 constitutional crisis tested the constitutional safeguards introduced under the constitution of Sri Lanka, particularly after the 19th amendment to the constitution, and to evaluate whether Sri Lanka’s semi – presidential system provides sufficient institutional mechanisms to restrain emergency – style executive actions. Sub objectives are to examine the constitutional provisions governing presidential powers under the post 1978 framework, to analyze the legal and political developments during Sri Lanka’s 2018 constitutional crisis, to evaluate the role of parliament and the judiciary in checking executive actions during the crisis and to assess the effectiveness of the 19th amendment in limiting executive overreach. The writing of this article uses qualitative method. Under the qualitative method using literature resources for this. Specially analysis technique based on previous researchers’ findings. The findings contribute to ongoing debates on constitutional reform, democratic resilience and the recalibration of executive power in post-conflict societies.