අධිකරණය හා නීතිඥයන්
When the Bar Association installed Upul Jayasuriya as president with the ousted Shirani Bandaranayake in the chair rather than Chief Justice Mohan Peiris, it signalled that lawyers still did not accept the new Chief Justice. Ivan welcomes the gesture but argues that judicial independence died with the executive presidency, not the impeachment, and that bench and bar share the blame: the referendum judgment, the Eighteenth Amendment, the Lenin Ratnayake scandal and a rapist High Court judge’s reinstatement show a profession unable to discipline itself. He sets out the English model of regulation.
දෝෂාභියෝගයේ තවත් පැත්තක්
Ivan argues that the impeachment of Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake exposes a constitution built to keep the judiciary subservient: a judge who displeases the executive can be removed by a simple majority, while a president is all but unremovable. He sets her case beside Neville Samarakoon’s dignified stand against J.R. Jayewardene, reads the 1,575-page select committee report and finds the key charge unproven, yet holds that her part in buying a Trillium Residencies flat left her with a moral lapse of her own.
අර්බුදයේ තවත් පැතිකඩක්
Comparing the political system to a badly built ship that is sinking, Ivan argues that the clash between executive and judiciary exposes the constitution’s subordination of both Parliament and the courts to the president. Yet the courts, he warns, have themselves punished people without fair hearings: the Supreme Court’s jailing of Tony Fernando for contempt, which the UN Human Rights Committee found unlawful; the contempt case against S.B. Dissanayake; and the treatment of the lawyer Elmo Perera under Sarath N. Silva. Serious allegations against Sarath N. Silva and Asoka de Silva were ignored while they served governments, so if the judiciary wins without changing its attitudes it may become arrogant.
ක්රමය කුණුවී තිබෙන තරම පෙන්නුම් කරන නඩුවක්
Ivan sets out a fundamental-rights petition by T.R. Ratnasiri, a deputy superintendent of Customs, who for ten years has fought at his own expense to pursue a Rs 619 million customs fraud case against Colombo Dockyard. He traces how the inquiry was halted under a 2003 tax amnesty, revived, then undermined by three judgments of Sarath N. Silva that curtailed Customs’ powers, and how the petition accuses Attorney General Mohan Peiris and Treasury Secretary P.B. Jayasundera of acting to have the appeal withdrawn over the Director General’s objections. The courts, he notes, have shown little interest in hearing it.
අර්බුදයේ තවත් වැදගත් පැතිකඩක්
Ivan argues that the courts, which should protect citizens from abuse of power, have also helped create the crisis. After Neville Samarakoon, Justice Mark Fernando tried to carry forward a creative tradition of fundamental-rights jurisprudence until the Kumaratunga era drove him out; Ivan recounts long conversations with him after his retirement about the 1978 constitution, which Fernando helped draft with Sarath Coorey and A.J. Wilson. Citing Sarath N. Silva’s near-confession over the Helping Hambantota case and Ranil Wickremesinghe on crossovers, he argues that the courts have distorted the law, and that the bureaucracy and the rich who control governments share the blame with politicians.
අධිකරණයේ හා විධායකයේ ගැටුම
After the university teachers, Ivan writes, the stage has been taken by judicial officers and lawyers, provoked by a thug attack on the Secretary of the Judicial Service Commission, who had been publicly criticised by the President. He argues that the 1978 system copied the American presidency without its checks, giving the president power to appoint judges and limiting judicial review. Neville Samarakoon, though appointed as a friend of J.R. Jayewardene, kept the court upright; the retreat came under Sarath N. Silva, whose misconduct his successors never corrected. The judiciary, he warns, cannot defeat the government within this collapsing system.
අනාථ දරුවන්ගේ ප්රශ්නය හා ළමා අපයෝජන
Ivan calls for better care of orphans kept in state-supervised children’s homes, noting that less is spent on their food than on prisoners’. He then recounts cases showing how the justice system favours the powerful over abused children: a High Court judge accused of abusing a young domestic worker who was reinstated to office; a children’s home at Beruwala run by hoteliers, whose exposure in Ravaya led to a criminal defamation case against Ivan; a teacher at a well-known school jailed for 30 years; and a monk whose case dragged on until his death. The system, he argues, shows no compassion for child victims.
සටන් කිරීම සහ අවසාන සටන
The third part recounts two interventions against lower-court decisions in the rape cases of two young girls, risking contempt of court. In the first (1993), after the Attorney General withdrew the case against a retired senior police officer, Ravaya ran a campaign aimed at the Attorney General himself, drawing reader protests, Professor Savitri Goonesekere and a public meeting until the case was re-filed; years later a false recantation, engineered through the convent where the girl lived, was exposed by the CID. In the second (1995), a magistrate who had freed a popular film actor fled the country, and the actor was convicted before being freed on appeal. Ivan draws the lesson that every fight for justice needs a philosophy, a strategy, determination and commitment, not just a protest.
සටන් කිරීම හා අවසාන සටන
Challenged by a friend who says he has turned from a fighter into a preacher, Ivan explains that his aim now is not a change of government but a change of the political system, which needs the support even of those tied to the evil. Prompted by Ravaya’s 25th anniversary, he lists the eight real battles of his career — against the parliamentary privileges law, the 17-year UNP government, criminal defamation, for the assets law, against two court decisions, an outside Elections Commissioner, a retiring President’s taking of state property, and the limits of book publishing — and says he lost only one, blaming K.N. Choksy’s concession in court. His ten-year struggle with Sarath N. Silva ended without result, he argues, because the Bar, media owners, parties and senior judges such as Mark Fernando stayed silent; Silva never used contempt law against him, which Ivan attributes to the remnant of conscience he appealed to.
අධිකරණයේ ස්වාධීනත්වය ගැන වැඩිදුරටත්
Rajpal’s column reports that the resolution a group of lawyers put forward against the appointment of a parliamentary select committee to inquire into the wrongs of Sarath N. Silva’s time as chief justice has been approved by the bar association’s executive committee, and names the lawyers who drove it.