News
Lawyers argue whether SC has right to hear Ranjan’s contempt of court case
The submissions in the contempt of court case against MP Ranjan Ramanayake were concluded this week with arguments over whether the Supreme Court had the power to hear the case.
The landmark case was heard before a three-member bench comprising Justices Sisira de Abrew (presiding), Vijith Malalgoda and Padman Surasena.
Appearing for Mr Ramanayake, M.A. Sumanthiran PC argued that the SC did not have the power to deal with contempt of court in this case, and that that contempt of court is not defined as an offence. He argued that there was no procedure laid down in the Constitution to deal with contempt of court cases and so the procedure in the Civil Procedure Code should be followed.
Mr. Sumanthiran said the SC only had the power under Article 105 (3) of the Constitution to look into instances of contempt of court where either the SC itself or its judges had been referred to. He argued that Mr Ramanayake had only referred to “judges” and that his statement would only be in contempt of court under Article 105 (3) if it either directly brought the SC or a SC judge into contempt.
In response, Additional Solictor General Sarath Jayamanne submitted that the SC, under Article 118 of the Constitution is the highest and final superior Court of record in the country. Further, Article 105(3) of the Constitution sets out that the Supreme Court “shall have…the power to punish for contempt of itself, whether committed in the court itself or elsewhere.”
Although Mr Ramanayake’s statement was not made in the Supreme Court, it would fall within the scope of “elsewhere,” he argued. He emphasised that it is only the Supreme Court who can interpret what “committed elsewhere” means.
Mr. Jayamanne referred to how “judges” is defined in Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act as the presiding officer of a court including the SC, and “judge” can also mean the SC itself.
Mr. Sumanthiran then argued that assuming but not conceding that the SC did have the power to look into this matter, that they should have followed the Civil Procedure Code and not criminal procedure. In response, Mr. Jayamanne argued that the SC is not bound to follow the Civil Procedure Code as the SC the highest court in the country.
Mr Ramanayake had also taken up the position that he never intended to speak badly of judges, but only intended to criticise lawyers. He said the word “judges” had slipped out of his mouth. Mr. Jayamanne citing the MP’s statements to the media countered this. The case will be mentioned next on the September 14 for clarifications.