Will act according to Constitution: SC

1 December 2012 04:09 am

Deciding to continue with cases referred to it against the impeachment of the Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake, the Supreme Court yesterday observed that it was not concerned about outside statements but insisted it would act according to the country’s Constitution.

“We are not concerned about outside statements and but we are conscious of the matter being adjudicated and conscious of our powers and conscious of the constitutional merit and would act accordingly,” Justice N.G. Amaratunga, who heads the Supreme Court Bench comprising himself, K. Sripavan and Priyasath Dep said:

Fixing the case for hearing, the court directed the Supreme Court Registrar to notify the date to the respondents – the Speaker and 11 members of the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) which is probing the charges against the Chief Justice. The court said it had no information whatsoever as to whether the respondents’ would file written submissions or not.

The SC yesterday also observed that the respondents were absent and unrepresented. It noted that the Appeal Court Registrar by his report dated Nov. 28, 2012 had informed the Supreme Court Registrar that notices had been sent to the respondents by registered post. The Appeal Court Registrar had furnished to the Supreme Court the registered postal article receipt authenticated by the post office date stamp 26.11.2012.

Court said the respondents are entitled to have one week’s time to file written submissions.

The Court fixed the hearing for December 13 and 14 before the same Bench.

The reference made to the Supreme Court by the Appeal Court for a constitutional interpretation on the question on Article 107(3) of the Constitution relating to the procedure of impeachment against a Judge was taken up by the Bench.

At this stage referring to the statement made by the Speaker in Parliament on November 29, petitioner’s counsel Kanag Iswaran PC brought to the notice of the Court that the respondents would not participate and they would not file written submissions.

He submitted that as the matter stands now two things are clear. He said that the Chairman of the Committee rejected the notices and they are not going to file submissions. In view of the urgency, he moves for argument on December 4.

Justice Amaratunga: Court of Appeal has now submitted that it has sent the notices on 26.11.2012. Whatever the statement made outside, as judges of the Supreme Court we have to act according to the Constitution.

AG Palitha Fernando: Notices have not been sent to him through the Registrar but it has been handed over by Instructing Attorney-at-Law. It has not been complied with the Supreme Court Rule.

He said in the notice the question of the matter has not been set out.

“On what am I to submit my written submission on,” he asked.

He pointed out that the notices should have been served through the Registrar of the Court of Appeal and the Attorney-at-Law has no law to issue notice:
K.Kanag Iswaran PC with Buddhika Ilankathilake instructed by Lilanthi de Silva appeared for the Petitioner Chandra Jayaratne. Shibly Aziz PC, Geofrey Alagaratnam PC, S.L. Gunasekara, Ikram Mohamed PC, Sanjeeva Jayawardena PC with Senany Dayaratne, Chrismal Warnakulasuriya appeared for Dr. Jayampathi Wickramaratne PC, Ven. Maduluwawe Sobhitha Thera, Nimal Weerakody, Chandrapala Kumarage and W. Visaka Perera Tilakaratne.

Attorney General Palitha Fernando, Additional Solicitor General A. Gnanathasan, Deputy Solicitors General D. Nawas, Sanjay Rajaratnam and Janak de Silva and Senior State Counsel Nerin Pulle appeared for the Attorney General.  (S. S. Selvanayagam)