53 S.C. 128\02 On this basis I am satisfied that section 4(2) and (3) creates a regulating authority that cannot be said to be overly dependent on government and, therefore, unconstitutional. I am, therefore, satisfied that the challenge to section 4(2) and (3) of the Act should be dismissed. However, the same cannot be said of section 6 of the Act. Section 6 seriously undermines the independence of the regulatory authority. Section 6 of the Act makes the Minister the licensing authority. While in terms of the Act the authority processes the applications for a broadcasters licence, section 10(1) of the Act confers on the Minister unfettered power to veto the granting of a license by the authority. This in effect revokes the regulating authority’s power to issue licences and confers it on the Minister. In my view the above quoted remarks of the Sri Lankan Supreme Court in Athukorale’s case, supra, apply with equal force to section 6 as read with section 10(1) of the Act. I accordingly hold the view that section 6 of the Act is unconstitutional because it totally subordinates the regulating authority to the Minister in the process of granting of broadcasting licences. I now turn to deal with the next section that the applicant seeks to have declared unconstitutional. The applicant seeks, in paragraph 1(c) and (d) of its draft order to have section 8 subsections (1), (2) and (5) and section 22(2) declared unconstitutional. The above sections provide as follows:-