SC ORDER OMITS ‘BY STANDING ORDER’ IN JUDGEMENT!- ENTIRE ORDER THEREFORE IN ERROR:
Posted on January 3rd, 2013

Courtesy The Daily News 

The Supreme Court order given yesterday to the effect that Parliament appointed PSC (Select Committee) cannot investigate the impeachment charges against the Chief Justice, on page 26 states that “ƒ”¹…”the constitution shall provide by law (the method of investigation of the impeachment motion) BUT the constitution in fact says “ƒ”¹…”by law or Standing Order.’

The Supreme Court obviously falsified/omitted the relevant part of the constitutional Clause in giving this judgment – – and left out the relevant vital part of the constitutional document, which says “ƒ”¹…”by law OR Standing Order.’

The entire gist of the Supreme Court judgment is that the Parliamentary Select Committee cannot investigate impeachment charges against the CJ, as it has been created by Standing Order.

However, the constitution does say clearly “”…” “by law or Standing Order”, whereas quoting the same constitutional article the Supreme Court judgment says “ƒ”¹…”by law’ omitting the part “ƒ”¹…”or Standing Order.’

The SC order states: “It is mandatory under Article 107 (3) of the constitution for Parliament to provide by law, the matters relating to the forum before which the allegations are to be proved, the mode of proof, the burden of proof and the standard of proof an any alleged misbehaviour or incapacity and the judge’s right to appear and to be heard in person or by representative in addition to matters relating to the investigation of the alleged misbehaviour or incapacity.’

However, the same cited constitutional article 107 (3) in fact states “parliament by law or Standing Orders provides

for all matters relating to the forum before which the allegations are to be proved, the mode of proof, the burden of proof and the standard of proof an any alleged misbehavior or incapacity and the judge’s right to appear and to be heard in person or by representative in addition to matters relating to the investigation of the alleged misbehavior or incapacity.”

It is clear therefore that the Supreme Court order has been made, omitting the key part of the constitution that states that Standing Orders is one way of creating a body to investigate impeachment charges against the Chief Justice. In fact the entire order therefore is in gross error, and has falsified/omitted the relevant constitutional clause. The order acknowledges that the removal of judges is a power vested with the President.

25 Responses to “SC ORDER OMITS ‘BY STANDING ORDER’ IN JUDGEMENT!- ENTIRE ORDER THEREFORE IN ERROR:”

  1. Leela Says:

    Why talk about just procedures, natural justice and etc and confuse simple simon like us with out talking about those serious charges the CJ was found guilty, I just cannot understand.

    If the CJ can file a case against the speaker and members of the PSC that investigated her illegal deals whom we have elected as our legislators on the validity of very Constitution she swore when accepting her job and the legality of the Standing Orders that was there for thirty years to get ‘her judges’ to rule her free, soon and I say very soon, she could file some more cases in ‘her Appeal Court’ to challenge some other articles and standing orders to grant 13A in full, and find our heroes that killed Pirapaharan and the gang guilty for War Crimes and finally give one third of our country to the separatists as their Eelam. That’s the name of the game of these traitors.

    If this is allowed, no point we electing members to Parliament; educated back coats can do it all for us as well. My foot.
    Leela

  2. Sam Perera Says:

    It is absolutely laughable to see clueless remarks from Daily news about the AC judgement. The Daily News joker appears not have read the AC response to the writ application.

    For those who are not aware, copied below is the Article 125(1) which clarifies the constitutional authority of SC, in absolutely clear terms.

    ‘125. (1) The Supreme Court shall have sole and exclusive jurisdiction”to hear and determine any question relating to the interpretation of the Constitution and accordingly, whenever any such question arises in the course of any proceedings in any other court or tribunal or other institution empowered by law to administer justice or to exercise judicial or quasi- judicial functions, such question shall forthwith be referred to the Supreme Court for determination. The Supreme Court may direct that further’ ‘proceedings be stayed pending the determination of such question.’

  3. Lorenzo Says:

    “The order acknowledges that the removal of judges is a power vested with the President.”

    Absolutely.

    Why can’t the president just sack her?

    This Chandra Jayarthna fellow who petitioned the court AGAINST the PSC is a well known Tamil Elamist. He made MANY LLRC submissions favoring LTTE leftovers.

  4. Leela Says:

    Lorenzo
    The CJ will be fired and would soon she will vanish in to thin air. But the ali, koti, rathu and NGOs and their paymasters have already started looking for a replacement to continue their egos. In my comments, I have suggested Pakia as the best option for he can do ballroom dancing. I thought, he can introduce it to others to keep them preoccupied.
    Leela

  5. Charles Says:

    Sam Perera the right of the Courts to interpret the constitution is conditional. The courts interpret the constitution to “….whenever any such question arises in the course of any proceedings in any other court or tribunal or other institution empowered by law to administer justice or to exercise judicial or quasi- judicial functions, such question shall forthwith be referred to the Supreme Court for determination.”

    The courts cannot interpret the Constitution to the Parliament unless the Parliament requests an interpretation. That is the Supremacy of the Legislation which is of the people. In the case of the CJ the Appellate Court and the Supreme court should have refused the writ application of he CJ as here is a conflict of interest above all.

  6. cassandra Says:

    Charles,

    If it is not to the Supreme Court that we turn to when an interpretation of the constitution is needed, to whom do we turn? You are not suggesting the members of parliament are more competent to provide an interpretation, are you? There has been a great deal – much of it quite absurd – written recently about the supremacy of parliament. But the supremacy of parliament does not confer on MPs an unfettered right to do as they please. The supremacy of parliament is still limited to doing what is constitutional and legal.

    Whatever grounds the court may have had to refuse the CJ’s application for a writ, ‘a conflict of interest’ could not be one. The matter of ‘a conflict of interest’ does not apply here. The CJ has no more of a conflict of interest in this case than any other person seeking relief from a court on the basis that the person has been ‘improperly’ charged.

  7. Lorenzo Says:

    As Wimal Weerawansa has said, govt. should appoint an ACTING CJ until the matter is finalized.

    Then the supreme court will have to follow the ACTING CJ not Shi(t)rani!!

    The “conflict of interest” problem will be resolved. Shi(t)rani will get a dose of her own medicine.

    The contest who has power to “interpret the constitution” will be resolved for good. The HUMANS at the SC UNDER the new acting CJ will interpret the way he/she directs.

    As I say,

    PEOPLE elect parliamentarians.
    A POLITICIAN appoints the CJ.

    If the sovereignty rests with the people, parliamentarians are CLOSER to them than CJ.

  8. Lorenzo Says:

    After sacking CJ, govt. should appoint a sufficient number of SINHALA BUDDHISTS into the SC which is now a den of minority rubbish.

    Hon. Chief Justice Dr. Shirani A. Bandaranayake (SINHALA)
    Hon. Justice Shiranee Tilakawardane (MUSLIM)
    Hon. Justice R. A. N. Gamini Amaratunga (SINHALA)
    Hon. Justice Saleem Marsoof, PC (MUSLIM)
    Hon. Justice K. Sripavan (TAMIL)
    Hon. Justice P.A.Ratnayake, PC (SINHALA)
    Hon. Justice Chandra Ekanayake (SINHALA)
    Hon. Justice S.I.Imam (MUSLIM)
    Hon. Justice R. K. S. Suresh Chandra (TAMIL)
    Hon. Justice Sathya Hettige, PC (SINHALA)
    Hon. Justice Priyasath Dep, PC (TAMIL)

    6 MINORITY JUDGES AND ONLY 5 SINHALA JUDGES. This is DAMN f****** joke.

    No wonder PRO-13 AMENDMENT MINORITIES CONTROL THE SC!!! To keep her colleagues’ majority support, the CJ HAS TO pander into their demands!!

    At least 8 SC judges MUST be Sinhala.

    That makes it easier to SCRAP 13 amendment.

  9. lingamAndy Says:

    Leela
    no point we electing members to Parliament; educated back coats can do it all for us as well. My foot.!
    This Westminster style was invented by British royal family to suite their rulling unite Kington for ever !
    Land of law say .. once Her majestry concernt any bill it become Law ! no one can brack that law include Queen unit that law amend in parliment (got approved by queen etc…)!
    So What ever court order We got to obey !eg: who ever not attanted court (include Presi Brother parliment speck+ 2 UNP members ) sholud be put into jail !!!

    What we need a Raja rulling ( We aldeay have any way) than his family follow !
    We are in right track !!!

    separatists as their Eelam. That’s the name of the game !!! working very well !!!

  10. lingamAndy Says:

    Lorenzo
    Hon. Justice Shiranee Tilakawardane (MUSLIM)- Muslim ???
    cool …………… Wait for Thaipongal vaana vedikkai !!!

    separatists as their Eelam. That’s the name of the game !!! working very well !!!

  11. Lorenzo Says:

    ALL previous governments controlled the SC.

    For some STRANGE reason, this govt. let the SC FREE WHEEL. It is time to show who is in control.

    The president can ELEVATE judges to SC judges. Get as many FAITHFULS in it as possible. Then the battleground will be a playground!!!

    Govt. should thank the SC because it was a MINOR matter that caused the rift. In the case of CBK it was FATAL.

    Sarath Silva whom she appointed and PROTECTED finally went against her!! He ordered an election in 2005 AGAINST CBK’s desire to stay in power till 2006. It was TOO LATE for CBK.

    Controlling the courts is nothing new to SL.

    A local proverb says it.

    “naduwath aamuthuruwanke, baduwath aamuthuruwanke”.

  12. Lorenzo Says:

    Andy,

    Leave her alone.

    There are 89,000 Thamil Mahaveer Mathaas.
    For them it will be Pai-thongal not Thai-pongal!!!

    நஷ்டம் செய்தி வாசிக்க.

  13. lingamAndy Says:

    Lorenzo

    Mahaveer – Vithaikka paddarkal Puthaikka padavillai !!They will back again soon ……

    Are ready for Thaipongal Vaana Vedikkai ? Sangu Utha ???

    Eelam war V !!! last in peace !!!

    WEE wil , Weee Will win it !!!!

  14. Leela Says:

    Andy,
    In the history of the British Parliament and the Judiciary not once any court had ever summoned or send a notice to the Speaker or Parliament Select Committee to appear before it. Ask any one and show us if there had been any such instances.

    I disagee a bit with Minister Weerawansa here; Horage nemai horagen my pene ahala thiyenne. Meaning the judgement was asked not from thief’s mother but thief himself.
    Thank you
    Leela

  15. callistus Says:

    Sam Perera what Charles points out is correct. Some people are mistaken here. The PSC is not a judge or a court or any authority to pass judgement. Its only duty and obligation is to report to the parliament of its findings. Yes it so happens the individual members are also in the parliament, and so are the members of the opposition. It is the parliament who will conSider the findingS of the PSC, debate at length, and give a verdict to the Speaker by way of a vote. So, here the majority wins, like in any other jury. Then the president executes the verdict. Simple as that. No need of all this ‘interpretations’.
    This is not a criminal, civil or commercial case.

  16. lingamAndy Says:

    Leela
    I am not legal person to give example PSC but my common sense is court is higher in Wesminster style system !

    disagee a bit with Minister Weerawansa- this JVP jocker I never take serious about him , I am not sure even He is capable to runing Kanja shop but how come he has own ministy !!! ohhh in mother lanka ever thing posible !!!
    eg: 7th grade drop out can become Thesiya Thalavar (National leder ) , 10% commision dealers can become eco-comic Miniter etc….

    that is our (i)lanka(i) !!!

  17. lingamAndy Says:

    callistus
    report to the parliament of its findings- not completed becuse the members of the opposition waked out & CJ (defendant) forced to wake out (usefd bad langusge Pissu ganiye )

    Now court ( higher in land of law) decide what to do next – court of appe said interpretations’. !

    so next we should obey court order now !!!

  18. Sam Perera Says:

    Charles,

    I beg to differ.

    “The courts cannot interpret the Constitution to the Parliament unless the Parliament requests an interpretation. That is the Supremacy of the Legislation which is of the people. In the case of the CJ the Appellate Court and the Supreme court should have refused the writ application of he CJ as here is a conflict of interest above all”

    Nowhere is our constitution explicitly says that the Parliament is supreme. The only supremacy as the Article 3 is explicit, resides with the people of Sri Lanka. The Parliament is one of the three branches, nothing else.

    On the matter of the constructional authority given in Article 125(1), it is all encompassing and absolute that the Supreme Court has that authority.

    “whenever any such question arises in the course of ANY PROCEEDINGS IN ANY OTHER COURT OR TRIBUNAL OR OTHER INSTITUTION EMPOWERED BY LAW TO ADMINISTER JUSTICE OR TO EXERCISE JUDICIAL OR QUASI- JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS, such question shall forthwith be referred to the Supreme Court for determination.’

    The language in this Article is absolute and certain.

  19. Sam Perera Says:

    Callistus,

    There is no doubt that the PSC is exercising constitutional judicial functions in this impeachment. Therefore, ONLY the SC can clarify the questions arising from their functions.

  20. lingamAndy Says:

    Lorenzo
    There are 89,000 Thamil Mahaveer Mathaas.- Please can you give correct figure of Sinhala Maveeraya since 1983 (start from 13 Army killed in Thinnavelu) !
    50,000 ??? (exclude sinhala civilians) !

    Naalai pirakkum Thamil Eelam !!! Sanke mullangu !!!

  21. Sam Perera Says:

    Hmm.. an Eelamist Lunatic is here posting comments.

    “Are ready for Thaipongal Vaana Vedikkai ? Sangu Utha ???

    Eelam war V !!! last in peace !!!

    WEE wil , Weee Will win it !!!!”

  22. lingamAndy Says:

    Sam Perera
    my comments only to our friend Lorenzo ! you ignore me
    please you carry on write about CJ matter , I am learning ….

  23. Lorenzo Says:

    Talking to this DEAD TAMIL ELAMIST is a waste of time.

    Keep begging. You will only get more Thamil Mahaveer Maathas widows.

  24. Sam Perera Says:

    “Talking to this DEAD TAMIL ELAMIST is a waste of time.”

    Fully agree on this one.

  25. lingamAndy Says:

    Lorenzo
    Talking to this DEAD TAMIL ELAMIST is a waste of time- agrred but please do not forget to watch Thaipongal Vaana Vedikkai at Neduntheevi ( Our President may have change to watch from Nainatheevi visit)!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

 

 


Copyright © 2018 LankaWeb.com. All Rights Reserved. Powered by Wordpress