Sunday Times 2
Whither justice, Mother Lanka?
View(s):
The ideal of a good judge originates from the ancient goddesses of justice, who were personification of the moral force in judicial systems. The Roman goddess Justitia (Lady Justice) symbolised perfect justice, which was expected to be pursued by human judges as well. Their female character was due to the high rank of women in ancient society.
By the end of the medieval period, independent professional judges with real legal knowledge had been appointed in England. These ‘good and loyal men’ had slowly come to keep almost entirely away from politics and steadily gained popularity. In the meantime, all judges, even professional ones had been required to possess seven moral qualities: ‘wisdom, humility, fear of God, hatred of money, love of truth, amiability, and good reputation.’
In modern times, “the greatest strength of the judiciary is the faith of the people in it. Faith, confidence and acceptability cannot be demanded, they have to be earned. And that can be done only by developing the inner strength of morality and ethics.” Judicial virtues must therefore be identified, developed and practised.
“Judicial independence and impartiality are the most important sources of legitimacy and authority for judges and consequently, of public trust in judicial institutions. With the expansion of the domain of judicial power, they have even acquired more importance than in the past.”
These attributes are sine qua non for justice. But do we have it?
Recently, I enquired from a lawyer the possibility of court action in public interest in regard to violation of people’s rights by the government. The answer I got was, “Courts? Tassie are you dreaming”. Such is the disdain in which our judicial system is held today. This was too much for me to contain and I mentioned it to Dr. Frank de Silva, a former Inspector General of Police, who has written widely on the prevailing justice system. He confirmed it saying, “It is a reality, and we have to live with it.”
A highly regarded law academic, Prof. Savithri Gunasekere, was openly critical recently of the Supreme Court for not giving reasons for its order in an important public interest litigation. Her article received wide publicity in the media.
There are financial ramifications that pave the way for these injustices: Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has only a nominal role in justice. Private Interest Litigation dominates the scope of justice. The difference is clear. The reason that that the latter, the private cases, prevail over the public interest is apparent. The grounds for the divergence echo lucrative considerations. PIL can muster very little financial commitment whereas private cases command money and resources even at astronomical levels. The disparity tells on the quality of justice and as the senior lawyer put it, “Courts? Tassie are you dreaming” and another said that “it is a reality, we have to live with it.”
The divergence from the core point of justice, in these two directions, is the critical fact of current experience. And this is of recent incidence, about three or four decades, which was hardly the case in the hundred or more years previously. The problem is in the fact that market economy and values have now intruded governance, and includes the judiciary, the legislature and the executive, where matters can be bought and sold in the order of exchange. PIL is then ‘sold out’ in the justice process while other litigation looms large in the whole sphere. PIL cases are relegated to postponements sine die crowded out by the more affluent.
The question is: Do we really have to live with the prevailing injustice? Have there not been similar periods elsewhere, say in France, during the French Revolution? Judges and the nobility they protect, better beware of the storming of the Bastille Fortress and the guillotine.
(The writer is a Retired Senior Superintendent of Police. He can be contacted at
seneviratnetz@gmail.com)