Sritharan Asked to Step Down from Constitutional Council Amid Deepening Political Rift with Sumanthiran
Colombo —
The simmering internal conflict within the Ilankai Tamil Arasu Kachchi (ITAK) has once again erupted into public view, underscoring a broader and more troubling crisis within Sri Lanka’s democratic institutions. At the centre of the latest controversy is ITAK Parliamentarian Sivagnanam Sritharan, who has been formally requested to resign from the Constitutional Council following sharp criticism over his support for the appointment of a military-affiliated officer as Auditor General.
The decision, according to party sources, was taken by the ITAK Politburo and communicated by the party’s General Secretary and former Parliamentarian, M. A. Sumanthiran. The episode has not only widened the political rift between Sritharan and Sumanthiran but has also reignited an uncomfortable debate about the role of defeated politicians exerting influence over constitutional bodies through party mechanisms—an issue many observers argue is dangerously corrosive to democratic governance.
The Immediate Trigger: Auditor General Appointment
The controversy stems from Sritharan’s endorsement, during proceedings of the Constitutional Council, of the appointment of O. R. Rajasinghe as Auditor General. Rajasinghe is an officer attached to the audit division of the Sri Lanka Army—a fact that immediately drew fire from civil society groups and political actors wary of creeping militarisation within civilian institutions.
ITAK swiftly distanced itself from Sritharan’s position, accusing him of acting in direct contradiction to the party’s longstanding opposition to the militarisation of independent state institutions. In a sharply worded internal communication, the party argued that supporting a military-linked appointment to such a critical oversight role undermines both institutional independence and democratic accountability.
Sumanthiran’s Return to the Political Arena—By Proxy
While the official narrative frames the decision as a principled stand against militarisation, the political subtext is far more complex. M. A. Sumanthiran, who lost his parliamentary seat at the most recent general election, remains one of the most influential figures within ITAK’s internal hierarchy. His continued ability to shape outcomes in parliamentary committees—despite lacking a direct electoral mandate—has become a source of growing unease, even among party insiders.
Critics argue that Sumanthiran’s intervention in the Sritharan affair exemplifies a broader problem in Sri Lankan politics: the persistence of “proxy power,” where unelected or defeated politicians exercise disproportionate influence over elected representatives through party structures.
“This is not merely an internal party disciplinary issue,” a senior constitutional analyst told Colombowire. “It raises fundamental questions about democratic legitimacy. When a politician rejected by voters continues to influence constitutional processes indirectly, it weakens the principle of representative democracy.”
Sritharan vs. Sumanthiran: A Long-Running Political Fault Line
The political rivalry between Sritharan and Sumanthiran did not begin with the Auditor General controversy. The two represent sharply divergent ideological and strategic approaches within Tamil politics.
Sritharan, representing Majority Hindu Tamils, who rose to prominence on a platform that emphasises Tamil nationalist sentiment and grassroots mobilisation, has often positioned himself as a voice of defiance against Colombo-centric political elites. Sumanthiran, representing minority Christian Tamils by contrast, has long cultivated an image as a constitutional lawyer-without excel in constitutional maters, politician—one comfortable operating within elite legal and diplomatic circles, often advocating incremental reform through institutional engagement.
These differences came to a head in January 2024, when Sritharan defeated Sumanthiran in a secret-ballot election to become leader of ITAK. The outcome was widely interpreted as a rebuke to Sumanthiran’s dominance within the party and a signal of shifting power dynamics among Tamil voters and party cadres alike.
However, the leadership contest did not end the struggle. Legal challenges, internal disputes, and factional manoeuvring have continued unabated, with the Constitutional Council controversy now serving as the latest battleground.
The Constitutional Council and the Question of Independence
The Constitutional Council occupies a critical position in Sri Lanka’s governance architecture. Tasked with approving appointments to key independent commissions and high offices, it is meant to function as a safeguard against executive overreach and political interference.
Against this backdrop, the Sritharan episode has exposed uncomfortable contradictions. On the one hand, ITAK insists it is defending institutional independence by opposing militarisation. On the other, critics argue that compelling an elected MP to resign from the Council due to internal party pressure represents a form of politicisation in itself.
More troubling still is the perception that decisions within the Council are being influenced not solely by its members, but by party elites operating outside Parliament.
“Democracy is not just about who sits in Parliament,” a former senior civil servant noted. “It is about whether institutions are allowed to function without invisible hands pulling the strings.”
Militarisation vs. Democratic Norms: A Legitimate Debate, Politically Weaponised
There is little doubt that concerns about militarisation resonate deeply within Sri Lanka, particularly among minority communities shaped by decades of conflict. The appointment of a military-affiliated officer as Auditor General raises legitimate questions about civilian oversight, institutional culture, and the symbolic message such appointments send.
Yet the manner in which the issue has been politicised within ITAK has drawn criticism. Supporters of Sritharan argue that his endorsement was based on professional competence rather than institutional affiliation, and that reducing the debate to a binary “civilian versus military” framework oversimplifies a complex issue.
Others contend that Sumanthiran’s hardline response is less about democratic principle and more about reasserting control within a party where his authority has been eroded.
Democracy by Mandate—or by Manipulation?
At the heart of the controversy lies a fundamental democratic question: who truly holds power?
In theory, parliamentary democracy is anchored in electoral mandate. In practice, Sri Lanka’s political culture often allows defeated politicians to retain influence through party hierarchies, legal manoeuvres, and informal networks. While not unique to ITAK, the current dispute illustrates how such practices can distort institutional functioning.
When parliamentary committee affairs and constitutional decisions are shaped by individuals who no longer face voters, accountability becomes blurred. For critics, Sumanthiran’s role in orchestrating Sritharan’s potential removal from the Constitutional Council epitomises this democratic deficit.
A Dangerous Precedent
Legal experts warn that allowing party politburos to dictate participation in constitutional bodies sets a dangerous precedent. If left unchecked, it could normalise the idea that constitutional offices are contingent on party loyalty rather than independent judgment.
“This is precisely how institutions hollow out,” said a Colombo-based constitutional lawyer. “Not through dramatic coups, but through incremental encroachments justified as party discipline.”
The Broader Implications for Tamil Politics
Beyond the immediate institutional concerns, the episode reflects a deeper crisis within Tamil politics itself. The persistent infighting, personality-driven rivalries, and legal wrangling risk alienating an electorate already disillusioned with political leadership.
For younger Tamil voters in particular, the spectacle of senior leaders fighting over committee seats and procedural control—rather than policy outcomes—reinforces cynicism about politics as a vehicle for meaningful change.Democracy Under Strain
The call for Sivagnanam Sritharan to step down from the Constitutional Council is more than a party disciplinary matter. It is a revealing moment in Sri Lanka’s ongoing struggle to reconcile party politics with democratic governance.
While concerns about militarisation deserve serious debate, the use of internal party power—particularly by a former MP rejected at the polls—to influence constitutional affairs raises profound questions about democratic norms.
If democracy is to retain credibility, institutional independence must be protected not only from military overreach, but also from political manipulation conducted behind the façade of party authority. Otherwise, the real casualty will not be one MP or one appointment, but the fragile trust that underpins Sri Lanka’s constitutional order.