Petitions against impeachment motion against CJ referred to SC
![]()
![]()
A three-Judge Court of Appeal Bench yesterday referred to the Supreme Court, for interpretation, Article 107/3 of the Constitution, in respect of petitions filed by Chandana Jayaratne and three others against a Parliamentary Select Committee appointed to inquire into the allegations against the Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake.
Attorney-at-law S. L. Gunasekera leaves the Appeal Court with attorney-at-law Krishmal Warnasuriya after moving the Court against the UPFA initiated impeachment motion against Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake.
Pic by Kamal Bogoda.
Pic by Kamal Bogoda.
By Chitra Weerarathne
November 20, 2012
A three-Judge Court of Appeal Bench yesterday referred to the Supreme Court, for interpretation, Article 107/3 of the Constitution, in respect of petitions filed by Chandana Jayaratne and three others against a Parliamentary Select Committee appointed to inquire into the allegations against the Chief Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake.Article 107/3 refers to the procedure of impeachment.
President’s Counsel Sanjeewa Jayewardene, who supported a petition on bias of some of the PSC members, was advised by the Court to take up the matter at that forum.
The Bench comprised Justices S. Sriskandarajah (President) Anil Gooneratne and A. W. A. Salam.
At the beginning of the hearing, Counsel Kanag Ishwaran explained that the concern of the petitioner was to secure the Independence of the Judiciary. Article 107/2 stated that Justices of the Supreme Court could be removed by the President after an address of Parliament. The reason could be misconduct or misbehaviour. Standing Orders of Parliament were for the management of Members of the Parliament, he said.
Standing Orders gave guidelines for removal of the President and the Judges.
Counsel Kanag Ishwaran said Articles (3) and (4) referred to the sovereignty of the People and the Judicial Powers respectively. Parliament derived power from the people who were Supreme. Parliament was bound by the limitations of the Constitution, he said.
Law was any Act of Parliament but Standing Orders were not law, Article 117 explained, he argued, adding that Standing Order could not order persons to appear before Parliament.
Counsel said Standing Order 78 included rules for debate. Judicial powers of the people were exercised through the Courts, except in the matter of parliamentary privileges, he said.
Counsel Kanag Ishwaran said the attempt to takeaway the judicial powers of the courts and to give it to another institution, violated the Constitution.
To confer judicial power on the Select Committee, outside of Article 4(C), was a violation of the Constitution of Sri Lanka, Counsel Kanag Ishwaran said, adding that the Judicial powers of the people had not been given over to Parliament.
He said Standing Order 78, had given the rules for Parliamentary debate. Standing Orders were controlled by Articles 3 and 4 of the Constitution.
The Parliamentary Select Committee should not publish proceedings until a person was found guilty, counsel stressed.
The Select Committee was not a judicial body. They must be restrained from proceeding to investigate the Chief Justice, he stressed.
S. L. Gunesekera associated his submissions with those made by K. Kanag Ishwaran.
The Standing Orders denied a justice the right to equality enshrined in Article 12(1), on equality, he said.
At the end of yesterday’s hearing the Court of Appeal referred to the Supreme Court, the petitions, filed by Jayaratne and three others, for its interpretation of Article 107/3 of the Constitution. Article 107/3 refers to the procedure for impeachment. Some of the petitions are to be heard today.
Among the persons who have filed Writ Applications against the Parliamentary Select Committee, to investigate allegations against the Chief Justice, are Dr. Jayampathy Wickramaratne, Chandana Jayaratne, Venerable Sobitha Thera, Nimal Weerakkody, Chandrapala Kumarage, W. Visakha Perera Tilakaratne.
All these petitioners had made the eleven Members of Parliament on the Select Committee respondents, while some had included the Speaker of Parliament, too, as a respondent.
All these petitions basically said that, Article 4(C) of the Constitution referred to the judicial rights of the people and that a select committee, appointed under Standing Order of Parliament 78(A), could not interfere with the constitutional rights of the people. The independence and the integrity of the judiciary should be maintained, they said, adding that the Select Committee must be prohibited from proceeding further.
Posted by Thavam
