Removal Of Judges; A Comparative Review Of The Procedures
Thushara Rajasinghe
Removal Of Judges; A Comparative Review Of The Procedures Of Sri Lanka, India, Singapore And New Zealand
The Parliament Select Committee (PSC) appointed to probe the allegations leveled against the present Chief Justice of Sri Lanka commenced its proceedings on the 23rd of November 2012. Meanwhile numbers of prominent professionals have invoked the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal seeking orders in the nature of writ of prohibition against the PSC challenging the constitutionality of the PSC and its procedures. These petitions are now before the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of Article 107 (3) of the Constitution and Standing Order No. 78A. These developments derived from the move to impeach the present Chief Justice of Sri Lanka have sparked a very important and constructive intellectual discussions, apparently sidelining some of the politically and personal affiliation rhetoric over the present impeachment process.
Independence of the Judiciary is one the main cornerstones of a vibrant and dynamic democracy It holds a significant position within the wheels of the democracy. Unlike other two main organs of the government, the judges of the Judiciary are appointed officers but not elected representatives of the people. It is the organ of governance entrusted the exercise of the judicial power of the People. The appointment and the removal of the judges to and from their respective office is highly delicate and sensitive process. Both these processes of appointment and the removal should be done with great amount of fairness and openness as it manifestly affects the independence of the Judiciary. It is evident that most of the democracies in the world have guaranteed the tenure of the office of the judges without any disturbance and they could only be removed on the grounds of proven misbehavior or incapacity through a special process established under constitution which is the paramount law of the land. Read More
