50 supra. S.C. 128\02 It is argued that the authority created under section 4 of the Act was not sufficiently independent of government control and, therefore, unconstitutional. The facts in the Athukorale’s case, supra, are these: On 21 March 1997 the Sri Lanka Broadcasting Authority Bill was published in the Sri Lanka Government Gazette, and was subsequently placed on the order paper of the Sri Lankan Parliament. The Bill was intended to make provision for the establishment of a new authority, the Sri Lanka Broadcasting Authority, to regulate the establishment and maintenance of broadcasting stations and to provide for the issuance of licences for that purpose. Clauses 3(1), (4), 5(g), 7(7), 10, 11, 17 and 19 of the Bill contained provisions to enable the proposed authority to supervise, direct and control the content of programmes to be broadcast and to provide for the control of the authority by government appointees and for the vesting in the minister of powers to remove the chairman and members of the board and to prescribe guidelines to be followed by licensees. The petitioners, by application under art 126 of the Constitution of Sri Lanka, invoked the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to determine whether the Bill or any of its provisions was inconsistent with the Constitution and, in particular, Article 14(1)(a) of the Sri Lankan Constitution which provided that every citizen was entitled to freedom of speech and expression including publication. Section 3 of the Bill whose constitutionality the court was called upon to determine provided as follows:- “3 (1) The administration, management and control of the affairs of the Authority shall be vested in a Board of Directors (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’) consisting of the following:-