President has no authority to remove the Chief Justice. The removal order is void as the resolution passed by the Parliament is unconstitutional
(Lanka-e-News -14.Jan.2013, 11.30PM) The Sri Lankan Supreme Court has declared the parliamentary select committee impeachment proceedings were unconstitutional. The Sri Lankan Parliament disregarded the highest court’s decision and adamantly passed the resolution.
President accepted the unconstitutionally passed resolution and signed the order to remove the Chief Justice of Sri Lanka.
It is well settled law that when the court declares any act to be unconstitutional, all subsequent related proceedings becomes void.
The President has no authority to remove the Chief Justice at this time and he has violated the Constitution. Constitution states that President can be removed for intentional violation of Constitution.
The real issue will arise when the President appoints the new Chief Justice.
Of course the new Chief justice will be a lawyer who is admitted to the Sri Lankan Bar and is subject to Supreme Court’s rules.
No lawyer can act against the Supreme Court decision and against the Constitution.
When new chief justice is appointed the present Chief Justice Bandaranayake has a legal remedy to go forward before the Supreme Court to challenge the appointment made by the President.
The Chief Justice’s constitutional rights have been violated and under the Constitution she has a fundamental right action before the Supreme Court.
The New Chief Justice is a party and he has a right to justify his appointment.
(Lanka-e-News -14.Jan.2013, 11.30PM) The Sri Lankan Supreme Court has declared the parliamentary select committee impeachment proceedings were unconstitutional. The Sri Lankan Parliament disregarded the highest court’s decision and adamantly passed the resolution.President accepted the unconstitutionally passed resolution and signed the order to remove the Chief Justice of Sri Lanka.
It is well settled law that when the court declares any act to be unconstitutional, all subsequent related proceedings becomes void.
The President has no authority to remove the Chief Justice at this time and he has violated the Constitution. Constitution states that President can be removed for intentional violation of Constitution.
The real issue will arise when the President appoints the new Chief Justice.
Of course the new Chief justice will be a lawyer who is admitted to the Sri Lankan Bar and is subject to Supreme Court’s rules.
No lawyer can act against the Supreme Court decision and against the Constitution.
When new chief justice is appointed the present Chief Justice Bandaranayake has a legal remedy to go forward before the Supreme Court to challenge the appointment made by the President.
The Chief Justice’s constitutional rights have been violated and under the Constitution she has a fundamental right action before the Supreme Court.
The New Chief Justice is a party and he has a right to justify his appointment.
The obvious result will be to declare the Parliament resolution is unconstitutional and the appointment by the President is void.
Because the President has overstepped the constitutional authority he is enjoining.
New Chief Justice has no other option except to honor the court. Otherwise he or she is liable for contempt of court. In addition that person may lose his attorney license to practice law.
Unconstitutional act is against the public policy and cannot be enforced anywhere except doctorial regime where the gun and the bullet are supreme not the constitution.
Because the President has overstepped the constitutional authority he is enjoining.
New Chief Justice has no other option except to honor the court. Otherwise he or she is liable for contempt of court. In addition that person may lose his attorney license to practice law.
Unconstitutional act is against the public policy and cannot be enforced anywhere except doctorial regime where the gun and the bullet are supreme not the constitution.
By Premalal Ranasinghe (New York)
