AI Response

Yes, the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka can overturn its own decisions, but only under strictly defined, highly exceptional circumstances. [1, 2, 3]

As established in landmark rulings, the Supreme Court is the apex judicial body and its judgments are constitutionally final. It has no statutory or constitutional power to rehear, review, or alter its decisions simply because a party is dissatisfied. However, the Court possesses inherent powers to vacate or set aside its own orders to prevent a miscarriage of justice or an abuse of the process of Court under specific conditions. [1, 2, 3]

---

Exceptional Circumstances Permitting Revision

The Court may exercise its inherent power to overturn its own final decision in the following exceptional situations: [1]

1. Decisions Passed Per Incuriam (Through Inadvertence/Lack of Care):
   • This is the primary ground. A decision is per incuriam if it was made in ignorance of an inconsistent statutory provision or a binding legal precedent that would have altered the outcome.
   • It also applies if the judgment is based on a manifest, obvious mistake of fact where the court accidentally misunderstood the record.
2. Breach of the Rules of Natural Justice (Audi Alteram Partem):
   • If a final order was made without giving an affected party a right to be heard (e.g., passing an adverse judgment against a party who was never legally noticed or substituted).
3. Fraud or Collusion:
   • If it is subsequently proven that the judgment was obtained through patent fraud, deception, or false evidence practiced directly upon the Court.
4. Lack of Jurisdiction:
   • If the decision was a complete nullity ab initio because the Court acted entirely outside its legal jurisdiction or composition. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

---

Supporting Case Law

The boundary between finality and the inherent power to correct mistakes is governed by several core Sri Lankan cases:

1. Jeyaraj Fernandopulle v. Premachandra De Silva (1996) 1 SLR 70 [1]

• Principle: This 5-judge bench decision definitively ruled that the Supreme Court does not have a general revisionary jurisdiction to review its own final decisions.
• Ruling: The Court emphasized that its decisions are final to ensure litigation comes to an end. However, it explicitly preserved the Court’s inherent power to correct decisions made per incuriam (defined strictly as decisions made in ignorance of an inconsistent statute or binding case law). [1, 2]

2. Gunasena v. Bandaratilleke (2000) 1 SLR 292

• Principle: The Court invoked the Roman-Dutch and Common Law maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit (an act of the court shall prejudice no man).
• Ruling: The Supreme Court affirmed that all superior courts possess the inherent authority to repair an injury caused to a litigant by the court’s own obvious mistake or slip, extending the per incuriam rule to clear clerical or factual errors made by the judges during the reading of the record. [1, 2, 3]

3. Ganeshanantham v. Goonewardene (1984) 1 Sri LR 319

• Principle: One of the earliest major jurisprudence inquiries into whether a bench of the Supreme Court could revise a decision made by a previous bench of the same court.
• Ruling: It established that while final judgments stand, they can be set aside if there is a fundamental violation of natural justice or a clear per incuriam error that invalidates the proceedings. [1, 2]

4. Kariyawasam v. Priyadarshani (2004) 1 SLR 301

• Principle: Reaffirmed the per incuriam doctrine regarding an error of oversight.
• Ruling: The Court ruled that because a critical page of a final decree was overlooked during the initial hearing, it was a duty of the court to exercise its inherent power to rectify the error, stating “No man shall be put in jeopardy by a mistake made by a court“. [1]

---

If you are evaluating a specific judgment for a potential review, please let me know:

• Did the court overlook a specific section of an Act or a prior Supreme Court precedent?
• Was there an obvious administrative or factual slip in the final text?

I can help you evaluate whether the situation fits the strict definition of per incuriam.

https://share.google/aimode/1IhKHWXCBadUSlwqo

Source:  AI Overview