In November last year we welcomed in this very space, what we called a landmark Supreme Court decision to curb noise pollution. We said then, that loudspeakers have been grossly abused by all groups to the detriment of a multi-ethnic, multi-religious citizenry, the very anti-thesis of what the Great Teachers preached.

The Supreme Court decision was to ban their use from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m., and if there was a need to use them between these hours, to obtain a permit from the local police. Despite displeasure in certain quarters, the ruling was accepted as fair to all concerned, and seen to benefit the old and the sick, as well as students and all those who wished for some peace and quiet after a hard day's work. This week, a Buddhist monk was found guilty of violating a Magistrate's reference to the Supreme Court for Contempt of Court, and was remanded, raising more than a few eyebrows in the process.

According to the records, the monk had continued to use loudspeakers even after the Supreme Court order restricting their use. A complaint was made to the local Police, who having interviewed residents in the vicinity of the monk's temple, confirmed the noise was a continuing public nuisance and filed a case under the Penal Code. Harsh as it may seem, once a Court order is flouted, arguably the whole structure of a law-abiding society is imperilled. That a monk was at the centre of the dispute compounds the issue probably because more is expected from religious dignitaries whom people are wont to look up to.

What is disturbing is that the monk's sentencing is being compared with other aspects of the rule of law in this country, where politicians from the ruling party and their cohorts are treated different and allowed to roam the city on bail. While the Courts cannot be blamed entirely for the latter, this is the general public perception in the country. For instance, men of the cloth surely cannot be allowed to be driven on the wrong side of the road. There must be one law for everyone -- whether monk or ruling party supporter.

On the issue of noise pollution, the Supreme Court's intervention to provide some redress to a silent, suffering majority that has been bullied into submission by religious leaders with the backing of political parties and small-time businessmen who have oiled the palms of local authorities to break the law, is something that requires public acclaim. The Court's intervention has been frequent in recent times, purely because, it seems the Government is either incompetent or unwilling to take action fearing a backlash from interested groups.

This is best illustrated by their absolute vacillation in implementing the law to ban two-stroke three-wheelers. To hell with the air pollution they cause and the rise in asthma cases among young children; they pass a regulation, then re-think it and then shelve it through sheer indecision. Even on the issue of noise pollution, the Ministry of Environment finds itself in a total bind. On the one hand, controlling noise pollution is its charge. But the Ministry is controlled by a political party of Buddhist monks and simply trapped in the controversy.

In what appears a bid to shift any impending wrath from agitated Buddhist monks, President Mahinda Rajapaksa - whose police had no qualms about baton-charging and tear-gassing student monks recently, was quick to give a discourse on the separation of powers between the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary.

But the Judiciary is increasingly called upon to give rulings on what are day-to-day responsibilities of the Executive. From school admissions to marking of Advanced Level papers, from trade union strikes to exposing corrupt state tenders and punishing the miscreants, to giving directives on the price of gas - it is the Judiciary that is stepping in to stem the rot.
The Executive, partly incompetent, partly reluctant to tackle these issues because it must pay homage at the altar of the almighty vote for its sustenance, has found the Judiciary a convenient body to run a paralysed Government. The chilling weapon the Judiciary has to see that its orders are carried out is the provision of Contempt of Court -- which brings us to the on-going debate on the need for a Contempt of Court Law that defines what amounts to contempt.

Defying an order of a Court of Law, and interference with the administration of justice and what is known as some act committed 'in the face of the Court' are matters provided for in the Indian Act on Contempt of Court. But the Indian Act also provides for a charge sheet, a procedure and an appeal - it provides for fair criticism of judicial acts, and stipulates defences of innocent publications. In 2002, the then Government appointed an All-Party Select Committee chaired by the late Lakshman Kadirgamar, PC, MP to study a law of Contempt for Sri Lanka but the premature dissolution of Parliament put paid to that. There is some validity in proposing a law of Contempt for Sri Lanka on the lines of similar laws in the United Kingdom and India.

The laws of Public Nuisance need support, and if the Executive is unable to implement them, may the Judiciary do so.