Columns

The Supreme Court has been making the headlines in recent times for all the right reasons. A spate of judgements that have deep implications for a democratic society have been delivered by the country’s highest Court inspiring renewed confidence in the third pillar of governance, namely the judiciary.

On Friday the Supreme Court delivered two important judgements. The first was the order that held that Tourism Minister Harin Fernando and Labour Minister Manusha Nanayakkara’s expulsion from the Samagi Jana Balavegaya in 2022 was legally valid. As a result of the judgement the two who had been elected to Parliament under the Samagi Jana Balavegaya in 2020 but crossed over to the Government and assumed Ministerial portfolios lost their seats in Parliament and consequently had to step down from their Ministerial posts.  

The second judgement delivered by the Supreme Court yesterday was an order to annul the enforcement of recommendations made by the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (PCoI) appointed by the then President Gotabaya Rajapaksa tasked with investigating allegations of political victimisation.

This Commission was a result of the puerile decision making of the Gotabaya Rajapaksa Presidency and went against all norms of the Rule of Law and had to be inevitably struck down.

Two other recent judgements of the Supreme Court are worthy of mention. The first was the interim order restraining the Inspector General of Police from exercising his powers as well as the interim order restraining the Controller of Immigration from implementing the decision to hand over the issuing of visas to the VFS organisation.

The Government for its part has reacted badly to some of these decisions and attempted to by pass the orders. However the Government’s stand has been condemned by many civil society groups and political parties.

The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) condemned the government actions aimed at undermining the Supreme Court’s interim order concerning the appointment of the Inspector General of Police (IGP) Deshabandu Tennakoon.

In a statement in this regard, the BASL emphasised that the government’s claim that the Supreme Court does not have power to call into question appointments made by the President which are approved by the Constitutional Council is ‘totally untenable.’

In the case of the interim order issued by the Supreme Court with regard to the VFS fiasco too the Government has been criticised for vacillating in the implementation of the said order.

Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) Leader Rauff Hakeem during a debate in Parliament, chastised the Controller General of Immigration and Emigration, holding him responsible and the Ministry of Law and Order officials for the deliberate delay in migrating to the Electronic Travel Platform previously run by Mobitel in keeping with the SC interim order.

With the people’s uprising manifesting itself in the form of the Aragalaya, the anger of the long suffering public was directed at the executive for failing the people. Although couched in the Gota Go Home slogan the target was the entire Executive including the then Cabinet. Those who were part of the Aragalaya as well as outside also started questioning the role the legislature was playing and hence the call for all 225 Parliamentarians to be sent home.

Of course most discerning people realised that blaming all 225 Parliamentarians was unfair when there were many notable exceptions who had played their role as legislators in a satisfactory manner and had not been tainted with any allegations of corruption or misdemeanour.

The third arm of government, the judiciary, however was rightly not a recipient of public anger. It had stood unsullied by the troubles relating to governance that the country had gone through over the years.

The judiciary has long been recognised as the last resort of a citizen when his or her rights have been violated or in danger of being violated. It is for this reason that the Judiciary has evolved in democracies as the forum for resolving disputes between citizens.

Democracies have, therefore, developed Constitutional and Legal architecture that ensures the independence of the judiciary and protection of the judges from any form of undue influence that may undermine the course of justice. This becomes all the more important when the dispute is between a citizen and the all powerful State where the Court functions as no respector of persons and is called upon to dispense justice without fear or favour.

In such turbulent times the fact that the judiciary is performing its assigned role is a source of great comfort to the citizenry. The tradition of judicial independence has become part of the culture of the country and has therefore withstood the pressures that other institutions of governance have had to face.

It is comforting to know that even in the difficult days prior to 2015, the Members of the minor judiciary were making bold orders that kept Government agencies in check.(javidyusuf@gmail.com)