September 01, Colombo (LNW): The Supreme Court has turned down a request seeking to have several petitions challenging the Government’s proposed 22nd Amendment to the Constitution heard by a bench comprising all sitting judges of the Court.
The decision was announced today by a five-member bench headed by Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena, which ruled that the constitutional petitions would continue to be considered by the bench currently assigned to the matter.
The request for a full-bench hearing was raised by President’s Counsel M.A. Sumanthiran, who appeared for one of the petitioners. He asked the Court to consider referring the cases to a bench consisting of all judges presently serving on the Supreme Court, arguing for the broader consideration of the constitutional challenge.
Several other senior lawyers representing petitioners supported the application. Among them were President’s Counsel Saliya Pieris, Ali Sabry, Geoffrey Alagaratnam, Eraj de Silva, Srinath Perera, Anura Meddegoda and Maithri Gunaratne.
However, the Attorney General’s position was that the composition of a Supreme Court bench falls within the authority of the Chief Justice. Solicitor General Viraj Dayaratne submitted that Article 132(3) of the Constitution gives the Chief Justice discretion to determine both the number of judges assigned to a matter and the composition of the bench.
He maintained that this administrative and judicial discretion could not be overridden at the request of a party to the proceedings.
President’s Counsel Nigel Hatch, appearing for an intervening petitioner, also made submissions supporting the view that the decision on the composition of the bench rests with the Chief Justice.
After considering the arguments from all sides and the circumstances surrounding the applications, the five-judge bench rejected the request for a full-bench hearing.
The petitions challenging the proposed 22nd Amendment will therefore proceed before the existing five-member bench, with the Court continuing its examination of the legal issues raised against the proposed constitutional changes.