SC Ruling Part 2: Battle Over Land Turns Into Battle Of The Chief Justices?
By Rajan Philips -October 13, 2013
Rajan Philips
In what seems to be becoming the battle of the Chief Justices, former Chief Justice Sarath Silva has publicly disputed the factual foundation of the so called landmark Supreme Court ruling whose main consequence might be to prop up political claims denying provincial powers over land. One is left to wonder if Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranaike will also enter the fray. As the only academic who vaulted to the bench, she might be better placed in adding to the knowledge of the law than delivering judicial opinions in op-ed articles.
Save for drawing some prurient satisfaction, the situation is really a sad state of affairs, and disgracefully so. The three Heads of State who monkeyed with the judiciary, JR Jayewardene, Chandrika Kumaratunga and Mahinda Rajapaksa, have a lot to answer for. JRJ is beyond answerability. Will the conscience of the other two, their advisers and their appointees keep all of them restless at night? “Fat hopes”, whispers the realist.
What we can learn from this mess is that if the central government and the Provincial Councils are to discharge their obligations in using land for sustainable economic use and protecting it as an environmental resource, they have to turn to alternative policy, technical and administrative resources rather than turning to legal resources and the courts for interpreting the constitution. If at all the constitution is a compass, not a road map; a weather vane, and not an agricultural tool.
From British times, elaborate mechanisms have been put in place for alienating land with a hierarchy of officials exercising legislatively assigned powers according to clear criteria. There was political interference and the system was not entirely foolproof against administrative malpractices. But there were checks against them within the system, as well as parliamentary oversight and an independent court system as the final external arbiter. The system worked. We can debate, as I did last week, the economic benefits and the political fallout of the dry zone colonization project, but the project processes worked. There was no need for a constant recourse to the constitution or the courts. Read More
