FR Raises Concerns Over Vacant Judicial Posts

COLOMBO (News 1st); Attorney-at-Law Suren Gnanaraj informed the Supreme Court that the constitutional authority vested in the President has been intentionally disregarded in filling vacancies for judges in the Court of Appeal.

This came to light during the consideration of a petition submitted by President's Counsel Senaka Walgampaya, who is seeking a ruling that Fundamental Rights have been violated due to the failure to appoint judges to the vacant positions.

When the petition was examined today before the bench of Supreme Court judges P. Pathman Surasena and Janak de Silva, President's Counsel Suren Gnanraj presented the facts before the court.

He said that the sovereignty of the people guaranteed by the Constitution includes the power of the judiciary.

The Attorney-at-Law emphasized that the President is bound to implement the sovereign power of the people, and the Supreme Court has the power to intervene and issue the necessary orders in cases where he fails to fulfill that constitutional responsibility.

The petition states that although there should be 19 judges on duty in the Court of Appeal, there have been 5 vacancies since November last year.

The petitioner's lawyer said that the President has no power to refrain from appointing judges for those vacancies.

Deputy Solicitor General Kanishka de Silva, who appeared for the Attorney General, pointed out before the court that article 37 of the Constitution states that the number of judges of the Court of Appeal should be not be less than 6 and not more than 19.

She said that there are currently 14 judges in the Court of Appeal.

The Deputy Solicitor General stated that it exceeded the minimum number of judges in the Court of Appeal and therefore said that the work of the Court of Appeal will not be inoperative as the petitioner states.

Answering a question raised by Justice Janak de Silva, the Deputy Solicitor General stated that the President has NOT decided to NOT appoint judges for the Court of Appeal.

After considering the facts, the bench ordered the respondents to file objections to the petition within six weeks and fixed the hearing of the petition for November 27th.