News
Full Bench must hear FR case against CJ, say petitioner’s lawyers
View(s):By Wasantha Ramanayake
Lawyers appearing in a fundamental rights petition against the Government-appointed Chief Justice Mohan Pieris will object to any Bench comprising less than the total number of sitting judges of the judges of the Supreme Court
Counsel Viran Corea who was appearing for petitioner Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) with senior Counsel M.A. Sumanthiran said that Senior Counsel M.A. Sumanthiran in his submissions to the Supreme Court on Wednesday pointed out that it should be a full Bench of the Supreme Court with all sitting judges that should hear and determine the rights petition of the CPA.
On Wednesday the Supreme Court after hearing the parties in the rights petition filed by the CPA against the Government appointed Chief Justice put it off for March 5.
Government-recognised Chief Justice Mohan Pieris in a pensive mood at the Trincomalee Independence Day elebrations. Pic by Indika Handuwala
The court decision; however was not available till Friday to ascertain validity of claims by the counsel for parties; with petitioners counsel M.A. Sumanthiran claiming that the court recommended the application by the CPA requesting to hear the rights application against Government-appointed Chief Justice Mohan Pieris by all sitting judges of the Supreme Court.
The court acting under Article 132 (3) (ii) of the Constitution made the recommendation and referred the case for administrative action, he said.
However, according to Deputy Solicitor General Shaveedra Fernando appearing for the Attorney General, the court had referred the petition to Chief Justice Mohan Pieris for administrative action, when the petitioner’s counsel in fact asked the court not to do considering the conflict of interests.
The CPA earlier on January 28 filed a motion in the Supreme Court seeking the entirety of the Supreme Court (in terms of Article 119) hear and determine the case in the public interest to protect the independence and integrity of the Judiciary and the rule of law.
However despite the motion seeking all the judges to hear the cases, the case was fixed for support on Wednesday before a three judge Bench comprising Justice Shirani Thilakawardene, Justice S.I. Imam and Justice Priyasath Dep.
When the case was taken up Counsel M.A. Sumanthiran raised objections to the minute entered in the case record by Chief Justice Mohan Pieris who is the sixth respondent in the rights application of the CPA.
Mr. Sumanthiran raised objections to the minute requiring the case to be taken out of the support list.
He pointed out that the case was supposed to be supported on that day and according to the minute the rights case was only “to be mentioned,” not to be supported.
Mr. Sumanthiran pointed out that according to the minute the case would be taken up along with three other cases; therefore, the sixth respondent Mohan Pieris has an opportunity to nominate a Bench of his choice to hear the rights case filed against him.
The counsel said he had filed the motion in the Supreme Court requesting all the sitting judges of the Supreme Court to hear the case without having the choice of selecting the judges. Citing several authorities he argued that all the judges of the Supreme Court could hear the case.
President’s Counsel Ronald Perera appearing for third respondent UNP Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe and fifth respondent D.M. Swaminathan of the Parliamentary Council agreed with the submissions made by Mr. Sumanthiran.
Deputy Solicitor General (DSG) Shaveendra Fernando argued that the nomination of a Bench is an administrative action of the Chief Justice; therefore the case should be sent to Chief Justice Mohan Pieris for the consideration of the nomination of a Bench.
Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) and its Executive Director Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu filed the petition challenging steps to fill the post of Chief Justice with the Respondent Mohan Pieris PC.
The petitioners stated in terms of a determination of the Supreme Court and a Judgment of the Appeal Court, there was no valid Parliamentary Select Committee finding against Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake on which she could be constitutionally and legally removed. In terms of the Court rulings, she could only have been duly impeached by the passing of proper laws, rather than through Standing Order 78A of Parliament.
M. A. Sumanthiran with Viran Corea and Suren Fernando instructed by Namal Rajapakshe appeared for the CPA.
Deputy Solicitor General Shaveendra Fernando appeared with Senior State Counsel Nerin Pulle.
Follow @timesonlinelk
comments powered by Disqus