Attorney General Mohan Peiris, P. Thus the Bill, as per Article 3 of the Constitution, stood deemed, as constitutionally mandated, to have been determined as inconsistent with the Constitution. The Supreme Court was constitutionally estopped and debarred from having determined otherwise. Chief Justice, Shirani Bandaranayake and the other 2 Justices had dismally failed to take cognizance of the foregoing, in making the Special Determination of October 24, Having been indisposed , together with my Application, I tendered a Medical Certificate, seeking to appear within two weeks.
Five other parties had also previously filed Applications challenging this Bill. Disregarding my Medical Certificate , she had listed my Application, also to be heard the very next day, November 15, Significantly, the Supreme Court Registrar personally phoned urging me to attend Court. I declined to do so. At my request, the Registrar had submitted my Application, with the Medical Certificate, to the 5-Judge Bench, hearing the other Applications.
The presiding Justice, N. Amaratunga had permitted me to seek another date to support my Application, whilst dismissing in-limine the other 5 Applications , with the Bill having been enacted into law upon being certified on November 11, by the Hon. Speaker, which however was announced to the Parliament only on November 22, Under Article 80 3 of the Constitution, Supreme Court became functus from entertaining any challenge to a Bill, which was thereafter an Act — viz: At the very outset , submitting to Court, that I was unaware that the Bill had been certified into law, when I filed my Application on November 14, , and that I became aware only when the Speaker made such announcement in Parliament on November 22, , conceding that I am ousted from challenging a Bill that had become an Act, I sought a review and rectification of the Special Determination of October 24, , which I submitted was not ousted under the above Article 80 3 of the Constitution.
I stressed that the Supreme Court is vested with an inherent right to review and rectify its own Special Determination of October 24, , and if rectified in terms of the mandatory provision of Article 3 of the Constitution, then the onus would lie on the Hon. Speaker and Parliament to decide, as what ought be done. The 3-Judge Bench, presided by Justice N. Amaratunga, who had previously dismissed the other 5 Applications on November 15, , having been convinced of my such stance entertained my Application, and directed issuance of Notices on the Respondents, and permitted me, as requested, to tender an Amended Petition by December 16, , which I complied with.
The Registrar as directed issued Notices on the Respondents for January 26, Since I was seeking a review and rectification of the Special Determination of October 24, , as I rightfully and lawfully might , made an Application on January 18, , under Article of the Constitution, for the Chief Justice, Shirani Bandaranayake to constitute a Bench for such review , also seeking a Bench of 5 or more Judges — viz:. However, instead of constituting the same Bench , presided by her, which made such Special Determination of October 24, to hear my Application for a review , which was the normal practice in Sri Lanka , she on the contrary , directed my Application for review be heard on February 9, by the same Bench, presided by Justice N.
Socio-Political Realities Hilton Hotel Fiasco and Ad Hominem Legislation ...
Amaratunga, which had entertained my Application on November 25, and issued Notices on the Respondents. I cited the Case of the Chilean President Pinochet in the House of Lords, where one Committee of the House of Lords, set aside the Decision by another Committee, purely on grounds of alleged perceived judicial bias, disqualifying one Lord , on the premise that his wife was employed in a mere administrative capacity by Amnesty International, an Intervenient-Party. Obviously conceding the merits and correctness of my submissions , presiding Justice N.
Amaratunga, intimated to me, that though in UK, another Bench could review and set aside a Decision of one Bench, the practice in Sri Lanka was that, the same Bench must review its own decision. I promptly drew attention to my above Application of January 18, under Article of the Constitution for such review of the Special Determination of October 24, by Chief Justice, Shirani Bandaranayake, and whilst knowing such fact , that she, herself, had specifically directed that the Bench presided by Justice N.
Amaratunga hears my Application for such review. Chief Justice, Shirani Bandaranayake had no right, whatsoever, to have directed another Bench , as to how it should decide upon hearing a Party. Was this not grave judicial misconduct on her part? Confronted with such perverse intimation, I promptly tendered to the 3 Judge Bench, presided by Justice N.
Jayasundera, later amended, seeking to re-assume office, as Secretary Treasury, having been previously debarred by the Supreme Court from holding any public office , by reason of his conduct and actions in a privatization to John Keells Holdings PLC, annulled on July 21, as unlawful, illegal and fraudulent in SC FR No. The above Application of P.
However, Justice Shirani Bandaranayake being the most senior Judge, played an assertive role at the said Hearing. When it was unanimously decided as recorded in the Journal Entry of September 24, that the two main prayers a and b of P. Amaratunga, along with Justices K. Consequently in July , coincident with P. Jayasundera, and also from making the impugned Special Determination of October 24, , for that matter from having heard any other Application impleaded against the Government? Jayasundera to reassume Public Office, as Secretary Treasury.
However the Court is inclined to grant other relief under paragraph c of the prayer to the amended Petition. Jayasundera amended the Petition on 21 st July without obtaining permission from Court to do so. The amended Petition dated 21 st July , thus remained unsupported by a valid Affidavit, and, consequently, the said Affidavit should have been rejected in limine. When this matter was taken up on 3 rd August a fresh set of papers were filed, consisting of a second amended Petition dated 31 st July and a purported Affidavit dated 31 st July , once again without having obtained permission of Court.
Though I, appearing in person on September 24, , in this further Application by P. Ironically, I, the only person who was entitled to make Submissions, as per the aforesaid Supreme Court Rules , was granted a meagre limit of 10 minutes by presiding Chief Justice Asoka de Silva, with Justice D. Balapatabendi having futilely endeavored to prevent me from even making submissions. A wise Judge would investigate and give his decision without being partial. Jayasundera, consequent to which he was compelled to vacate Public Office.
N de Silva and Justice D. I will not allow influencing of any member of the judiciary directly or indirectly and they will be severely protected from undue influence from political or any other influence or incentives.
Hence, presiding Justice N. Amratunga directed that the Written Submissions tendered by me be returned and taken out of the Court Record, thereby suppressing such perverse facts from public disclosure. Nevertheless, comprehensively recording the proceedings in the Supreme Court on February 9, , annexing my above Written Submission and the further Written Submission, I tendered another Application on May 8, to the Supreme Court to review and reconsider the denial to me of Leave to Proceed as aforesaid, which was rejected in Chambers by Justice N.
In the context of such Ruling pronounced by the Hon.
Special offers and product promotions
Unlike in the previous instance of my Application for review of January 18, , made under Article of the Constitution, which had been correctly forwarded, as required, directly to the Chief Justice, Shirani Bandaranayake, however, in this instance, the listing Justice, K. Sripavan, prevented my Application for a review from being directly forwarded to Chief Justice, Shirani Bandaranayake to be considered by her , in terms of Article of the Constitution, read with Article 3 thereof.
Instead , Justice K.
Justice Minister and Foreign Minister, President's Counsel, both scholarly alumni of Oxford University, camouflages to whitewash fraud, taking duplicitous stances. How the country's highest judiciary deals with challenges to the perverse legislative process is revealing, with shocking disclosure of the Chief Justice's husband being given plum political office, with a scandalous controversy exploding in the public domain; just as the Author applies for a review of the pre-enactment Determination by Chief Justice for such Statute, as having been made per-incuriam and ultra-vires the Constitution, adducing additional grounds of perceived bias, upon wh.
JUSTIFICATION FOR SUPPORTING THE IMPEACHMENT OF CHIEF JUSTICE – Consultants21 Limited
Read more Read less. Here's how restrictions apply. Be the first to review this item Would you like to tell us about a lower price? Don't have a Kindle? Try the Kindle edition and experience these great reading features: Share your thoughts with other customers. Write a customer review. Amazon Giveaway allows you to run promotional giveaways in order to create buzz, reward your audience, and attract new followers and customers.
Learn more about Amazon Giveaway. Set up a giveaway. There's a problem loading this menu right now. Learn more about Amazon Prime. Get fast, free shipping with Amazon Prime. Get to Know Us. English Choose a language for shopping.
JUSTIFICATION FOR SUPPORTING THE IMPEACHMENT OF CHIEF JUSTICE
Explore the Home Gift Guide. Amazon Music Stream millions of songs. Amazon Advertising Find, attract, and engage customers. Amazon Drive Cloud storage from Amazon. Alexa Actionable Analytics for the Web. AmazonGlobal Ship Orders Internationally. Amazon Inspire Digital Educational Resources.