Govt. to amend proposed legislation to establish new High Courts

• Informs P’ment Bill will be presented once it is in line with the Constitution 

By Ashwin Hemmathagama – Our Lobby Correspondent

The Government yesterday informed Parliament that it would amend the Judicature (Amendment) Bill, which was proposed to establish new High Courts, to be in line with the Constitution.

Minister of Public Enterprise and Kandy Development and Leader of the House of Parliament Lakshman Kiriella, withdrawing the second reading debate of the Judicature (Amendment) Bill scheduled for the main business of the House, informed Speaker Karu Jayasuriya of the Government’s decision.

“We will not take up the Judicature (Amendment) Bill second reading debate for the day as there are some amendments to be made on par with the Supreme Court determination. We will re-present the Bill once it is completed,” he said.

Parliament received the Supreme Court determination on Tuesday that Section 12A (1) of the Judicature (Amendment) Bill was inconsistent with Article 154P(3)(a) of the Constitution and an amendment was required to be made to the Constitution to give effect to the respective section of the Bill.

“However, if the jurisdiction is conferred on the High Court of Provinces under Article 154(P)(3)(C) like in Act No. 10 of 1996 and Act No. 54 of 2006, this amending section will cease to be inconsistent. The amending Section 12A(2) of the Bill requires the Judicial Service Commission to nominate judges to the Permanent High Court at Bar. This is inconsistent with Article 154(P)2 of the Constitution and an amendment is required to be made to the Constitution to give effect to Section 12A(2) of the Bill which requires a two-third majority,” the Supreme Court held in its determination.

“However, if 12A(2) of the Bill is removed and Article 154P(2) remains as it is, this inconsistency will cease. The amending Section 12(A)(7) is inconsistent with Article 12(1) of the Constitution. However, if the Chief Justice is given the power to decide whether to hold a trial-at-bar, this amending section will cease to be inconsistent,” the Supreme Court determined. Parliament received copies of seven petitions filed at the Supreme Court in relation to the Judicature (Amendment) Bill on 20 March. These petitions were filed in accordance with Article 121 (1) of the Constitution.  The Judicature (Amendment) Bill recently presented in the Parliament provides for the establishment of a permanent High Court trial-at-bar, to try, hear and determine the trials of offences under the Penal Code, the Money Laundering Act, the Bribery Act, offences against Public Property Act and several other legislations.

The proposed High Court trial-at-bar shall consist of three judges to be nominated by the Judicial Service Commission from among the judges of the High Court. The new courts shall have jurisdiction in respect to offences committed wholly or partly in Sri Lanka or an offence committed by a citizen of Sri Lanka outside the territory of Sri Lanka or on board a ship or an aircraft. The Minister of Justice will have the power to specify the location of the High Court trial-at-bar and the power to increase the number of such courts. In addition, the Bill provides provisions to hear cases daily.

However, some petitioners, including a few members of the UPFA Joint Opposition, challenged the Bill citing that it would lead to unequal treatment and provide powers to the Minister to specify the location of this permanent High Court of trial-at-bar and to Executives such as the Attorney General and the Director General of the Bribery Commission to institute criminal proceedings.