By: Staff Writer
September 02, Colombo (LNW): The Judicial Service Commission’s (JSC) recent order directing all courts to clear their case backlogs by December 31 has placed the spotlight on a body that is often little known outside legal circles but plays a decisive role in how justice is administered in Sri Lanka. While the directive has stirred both urgency and debate across the judiciary, it also highlights the broader powers, responsibilities, and constitutional standing of the Commission in safeguarding judicial independence and ensuring efficient administration of justice.
The Current Directive: A Bold Push to End Delays
The JSC’s latest intervention is unprecedented in scale. Judges across District Courts, Magistrates’ Courts, High Courts, and even Additional District Courts have been told to prioritize the disposal of long-pending cases. Monthly progress reports are now mandatory, and the Commission has warned that accountability for success or failure rests squarely with presiding judges. Periodic inspections are to follow, and strict disciplinary action is being promised against staff who fail in their duties.
This move comes amid widespread concern that Sri Lanka’s court system, burdened with decades-old cases, risks eroding public confidence. According to the Commission’s own past reports, civil cases more than 30 years old have lingered in some jurisdictions.The December deadline, therefore, is both an administrative challenge and a symbolic effort to reassure the public that justice delayed will not remain justice denied.
What Exactly is the Judicial Service Commission?
Established under Chapter XV of the Constitution, the Judicial Service Commission is one of the country’s most powerful independent institutions. Its core mandate is to safeguard judicial independence by managing the careers and discipline of judges in the lower courts. The Commission is composed of the Chief Justice (as Chairman) and the two most senior Supreme Court judges, all appointed with the approval of the Constitutional Council.
The Commission’s responsibilities include:
– Appointments, promotions, transfers, and disciplinary control of District Judges, Magistrates, and Presidents of Labour Tribunals
– Appointment and supervision of Quazis, who handle Muslim family law matters.
– Oversight of court staff, including registrars, interpreters, and clerical officers.
– Administration of judicial affairs, ensuring that the machinery of justice operates efficiently across the island.
In practice, this makes the JSC the nerve centre of Sri Lanka’s judicial administration, bridging constitutional independence with operational control.
Guardians of Independence
A crucial aspect of the JSC’s existence is its insulation from political interference. Before the 19th Amendment to the Constitution (2015), the President had sweeping powers over judicial appointments. The amendment introduced checks through the Constitutional Council, ensuring that senior judges and JSC members cannot be appointed or removed without wider parliamentary and civil society approval.
Members of the JSC enjoy constitutional immunity for acts performed in good faith, while interference with its functioning is itself a punishable offence. This framework was deliberately designed to protect judges from executive overreach and guarantee public trust in the system.
The JSC’s Role in Case Management
While the JSC is not a court and does not adjudicate disputes, it exercises supervisory control over how courts are run. Its annual reports reveal a long-standing concern with backlogs. As far back as 2012, the Commission instructed District Courts to identify and conclude cases over three decades old.
The establishment of Civil Appellate High Courts, targeted recruitment of judges, and the introduction of digital systems were part of its strategy to reduce delays.Today’s directive to clear all backlogs by year-end is thus a continuation and intensification of that earlier mission. By using its administrative powers, the Commission seeks to transform structural inefficiency into a nationwide campaign of expedited justice.
Training, Oversight, and Discipline
Beyond appointments and transfers, the JSC also invests in the quality of the judiciary. Through the Judges’ Institute, it organizes training, workshops, and even overseas study programs to strengthen legal capacity.The Commission monitors judicial conduct closely, with established procedures to investigate complaints against judges and impose disciplinary action where necessary. The same scrutiny extends to court staff, ensuring that inefficiency or misconduct at any level is addressed.This dual role,nurturing professional growth while enforcing accountability,positions the JSC as both guardian and regulator of Sri Lanka’s judicial integrity.
Why This Matters to the Public
To many citizens, the judiciary is often perceived as slow, distant, and burdened with bureaucracy. Cases dragging on for years sometimes decades have created frustration and mistrust. The JSC’s current move to demand backlog clearance is a reminder that the judiciary recognizes these concerns.
At the same time, the directive raises questions: Can judges realistically dispose of decades of accumulated cases in just a few months? Will speed come at the cost of thoroughness? And what systemic reforms beyond deadlines are needed to prevent backlogs from re-emerging?
Legal experts argue that while administrative orders are necessary, deeper structural reforms such as digitization, procedural simplification, and alternative dispute resolution are vital for lasting change. Still, the JSC’s action signals a determination to confront the issue head-on, using the powers constitutionally vested in it.
A Balancing Act
The Judicial Service Commission walks a fine line between efficiency and independence. On one hand, it must ensure that the courts deliver timely justice to the people. On the other, it must preserve the autonomy of judges to decide cases free of external pressure. Its current directive, then, is not just an administrative exercise but also a test of whether judicial governance can be both assertive and fair.
Looking Ahead
As the December 31 deadline looms, the nation will be watching whether the JSC’s bold order yields measurable results. Success could reinforce public confidence in the judiciary, proving that a centuries-old backlog can finally be broken. Failure, however, could expose deeper cracks in the justice system, demanding more comprehensive reforms.
What is clear is that the Judicial Service Commission is far more than a bureaucratic body. It is the constitutional guardian of judicial independence, the administrative manager of courts, and now, the architect of a campaign to restore public faith in the rule of law. The coming months will reveal whether it can deliver on this ambitious promise.
