Subscribe

Anti-impeachment petitions put to CJ

2013-01-22 03:01:36
12
4922

The Attorney General yesterday made an application to refer three fundamental rights petitions to the Chief Justice and to appoint a Bench of five or more Supreme Court Judges to hear petitions challenging the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) that probed the impeachment motion against former Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake.

The Bench comprising Justices N.G. Amaratunga, P.A. Ratnayake and Eva Wanasundera directed the Supreme Court Registrar to refer the petitions to the Chief Justice when the Attorney General makes the application. Deputy Solicitor General Shavendra Fernando with Deputy Solicitor Generals Sanjay Rajaratnam and Janak de Silva and Senior State Counsel Nerin Pulle made the application for the Divisional Bench of Judges under Article 132 (3) (iii) of the Constitution.

Article 132 (3) (iii) reads: The Chief Justice may on the application of a party to any appeal, proceedings or matter be heard by a Bench comprising five or more Judges of the Supreme Court.

Counsel M.A. Sumanthiran appearing for the petitioner Ceylon Teachers Services Union (CTSU) General Secretary Mahinda Jayasinghe opposed the AG’s application on the basis that the present Chief Justice has not been properly appointed and submitted that Article 132 (3) (iii) could not be applied because de jure (conforming to the law or lawful) Chief Justice is excluded from the office of Chief Justice.

He said the de fact (existing in fact being such in effect though not formally recongnized) Chief Justice is a usurper of the chamber or office of the Chief Justice and occupying the chamber of the Chief Justice.

The counsel maintained that this cannot be a matater to be taken up on the same day.Counsel Viran Corea who appeared for petitioner Janaka Adhikari said he associated with the submissions made by Counsel Sumanthiran and said that without prejudice to the submissions, in any event the Attorney General is making such an application, and he should have done so earlier with notice to the petitioners rather than delaying the matter.

He said the Attorney General is not entitled to make such an application for the postponement of the hearing of this application at this stage on the date the petition was to be taken up for hearing. Counsel Suren Fernando who appeared for Petitioner Thenuwara said he too was associating with the submissions made by Counsel Sumanthiran and said none of the respondents have filed objection and even the AG had not filed written submissions as required by the Supreme Court Rule. He maintained the matter could not be taken up today.

The petitioners had asked Court to declare that Standing Order 78 A is ultra vires the Constitution and null and void and of no force or effect in law.The Court has already granted leave to proceed for the alleged violation of the fundamental right to equality and equal protection of the law

Petitioners cited Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa, PSC members Anura Priyadarshana Yapa, Nimal Siripala de Silva, Susil Premajayantha, Rajitha Senaratne, Wimal Weerawansa, Dilan Perera, Neomal Perera, Lakshman Kiriella, John Amaratunga, R. Sampanthan and Vijitha Herath and the Attorney General as respondents.
 Petitioners filed their applications in their own right and in the public interest with the objective of safeguarding the rights and interests of the general public and securing due respect, regard for and adherence to the Rule of Law and the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.(SSS)


  Comments - 12

  • Gon Haraka Tuesday, 22 January 2013 04:45

    which CJ are we talking about here ?

    Reply : 3       49

    Kalubanda Tuesday, 22 January 2013 08:19

    Hari CJ or Hora CJ ?

    Reply : 2       25

    Jan Chandra Tuesday, 22 January 2013 08:30

    Have you been sleeping

    Reply : 12       3

    Punny Pellow Wednesday, 23 January 2013 04:20

    No wide awake!. Whay cannot the PSC give a judgement?

    1       0

    RanjithT Tuesday, 22 January 2013 06:51

    How could there be justice when there is a conflict of interest? New CJ is a result of the impeachment and now he is going to decide on the anti-impeachment petitions. You call this JUSTICE???????????

    Reply : 7       42

    Kalubanda Tuesday, 22 January 2013 08:20

    Then HE is the Hora CJ !

    Reply : 2       25

    K Amran Tuesday, 22 January 2013 06:57

    Better to ask the cat who drank the saucer of milk!

    Reply : 3       26

    Real Peace Tuesday, 22 January 2013 07:13

    ...ha...ha...this is the mother of all conflicts of interest...ha..ha

    Reply : 4       29

    John Tuesday, 22 January 2013 09:02

    What a sad state of affairs in SL that we have all been taken as fools - just look at the DM picture on another section, that prooves it all!

    Reply : 2       16

    A. J. H. Rahuman Tuesday, 22 January 2013 09:03

    NOw we turn the Wimal Weeras peana ahana story ?

    Reply : 2       12

    Park Tuesday, 22 January 2013 12:49

    Chief Justice and Cheap Justice

    Reply : 1       15

    ruwan Wednesday, 23 January 2013 10:41

    naduth hamuduruwange baduth hamuduruwange

    Reply : 0       0

Add comment

Comments will be edited (grammar, spelling and slang) and authorized at the discretion of Daily Mirror online. The website also has the right not to publish selected comments.
Name is required

Email is required
Comment cannot be empty