Supreme Court and Public Interest Litigation
by Sarath WIJESINGHE
Supreme Court set up under Article 105(1) of the Sri Lankan
Constitution is the highest court and the institution established for
the administration of justice in the country which protects vindicates,
and enforces the rights of the people. Source of the supreme law is the
Parliament and the Supreme Court interprets and administers justice
“According to the Law” in the implementation of the “Due process”.
Court is the last hope and resort to a citizen for his life and
property, and it is the duty of the Government in power to facilitate a
viable mode of delivery of legal aid for access to justice which is not
a favour and an absolute right for justice and fair play and “Due
process” without which there is a possibility for the common man to take
law into his own hands. Public Interest Litigation and Legal Aid is
interconnected. In most liberal democracies consider it necessary to
provide some level of legal aid for persons otherwise unable to officer
legal representation.
This system is developed in the United Kingdom to the extent that any
aggrieved citizen eligible for legal aid is provided by the Legal
Services Commission funded by the State. In India and many Commonwealth
countries Legal aid is given priority by the State. State must provide
Legal Aid to an affordable Price at a reasonable time as “Delay in
Justice is Denial of Justice”. Judicial acts should be strictly based on
the following principle in Dhammapada which states as follows:
“Not by passing arbitrary judgements does a man becomes, a wise man.
Is he who investigates both right and wrong. He who does not judge
others arbitrarily according to the truth, that sagacious man is a
guardian of law and is called just. One is not wise because one speaks
much. He who is peaceful, friendly and fearless is called wise. A man is
not versed in Dhamma because he speaks much. He who, after hearing a
little Dhamma, realizes its truth directly and is not heedless of it is
truly versed in Dhamma. One is called noble because he is harmless
towards all living beings” The Just - Dhammapada
Public Interest Litigation
Public Interest Litigation is litigation for the protection of the
public interest which is a double edged sword which is to be used and
enforced carefully. It is the power given to the public by courts
through judicial activism. Judicial activism is a critical term used to
describe a judicial ruling that is viewed as “personal biased
interpretation” by a given court of what law means as opposed to what a
neutral unbiased naturally interpret the law to be. The pioneers of the
concept are Justice P.N. Bagwathy, one time Chief Justice of India and
V.R. Krishnan, one time Supreme Court Judge of India whose activism
influenced “some Sri Lankan” judges. Same concept prevails in the UK and
Commonwealth jurisdictions as group actions in the interest of “Groups”.
It was difficult to put into practice under the 1970 constitution.
Article 126 of the constitution which empowers a citizen or a group to
invoke the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court relating to the
infringement of an executive or administrative action of any fundamental
right or language right made a “window” - which today has become a main
door wide open to be used and misused by the public - for the
enlargement of the jurisdiction of the concept by judicial activism.
1980s this writer in the official and personal capacity took steps
carefully with the association and directions by Justice Bagawathy who
had a close rapport with late Neelan Tiruchelvam, a dedicated and a
celebrated lawyer and an academic on the process which has influenced
the current developments in Sri Lanka.
Public interest litigation was misused in India which has caused
drastic rifts between the Judiciary and the Executive. This principle is
now outdated and sparingly and carefully used in India. School
admissions, and security arrangements and managing vast sums of funds of
NGOs. It is not within their purview and jurisdictions and it is time in
Sri Lanka too to be self regulated and frame rules to this effect.
Judiciary in the United Kingdom has absolute freedom in the absence of a
written constitution, yet it is a self regulatory mechanism and
maintains the concept of separation of powers to the last word which is
exemplary.
Public Interest is a concept which derives from genuine public
spirited citizen with no hidden agenda motives - political, religious or
otherwise. It should not be used as a vehicle to propagate hidden
agendas, political or personal ideologies however the issues appear to
be genuine. The other danger is the deviation of the procedure in the
interest of public interest which is unsafe and leads to miscarriage of
justice, which gives ammunition to ambush and take advantage of the
situation to satisfy the ego and personal agendas. What is the remedy to
the ordinary citizen in the absence of an act on the procedure on
contempt of law as in UK, USA, India and many commonwealth jurisdictions
and developed countries.
Tragedy without Remedy
Then what is the remedy if the judgments are arbitrary, hasty, unfair
and personal as stated in Dhammapada. Judges are no God or Super Man.
They are liable to make mistakes especially when they are in haste,
angry, agitated and engulfed with personal family problems and public
and religious issues.
What if they make genuine mistakes or misdirected themselves as
knowledge is fast developing and growing. The principle of finality
should be a balanced and a reasonable concept. In small states the
parties are known and some judges who happened to be vindictive may
vindicate the litigants who are helpless and no remedy on various
reasons. There should be a remedy according to the gravity of the
situation.
It is a tragedy if there is no remedy in the Temple of Justice.
Public Trust
Doctrine of Public Trust is that certain resources are preserved for
public use and that government is required to maintain it for public’s
reasonable use. Public Interest is common well-being or general welfare
central to policy depends, politics and democracy. Mahinda Chintana is
clear on this point. It is in the preamble of the Mahinda Chintana as
follows, “This earth and its vegetation is yours. But they should be
protected not only for your benefit but also for the benefit of future
generation. A ruler is only a temporary trustee and not an owner of your
children’s heritage,” (Mahinda Chintana).
Therefore public property and enterprises are given to the ruler on
trust and it is his duty to be careful and diligent to preserve and
manage the State treasures in the best interest and for the benefit of
the people who has given the power and treasures on Trust. Basic basis
of many judgments since the application of this article 126 are these
principles and procedures which has relaxed and stretched on the basis
of judicial activism though not necessary and strictly within the rules.
There is nobody to question deadlines, procedures, time limits as even
the head of the Executive or the Executive have no power to intervene or
look onto the legality of procedural regulatory.
Declare your interests
It is a cardinal practice for great judges to declare any interest
before adjudication of issues of citizens entrusted the future life and
property rights to the Temple of Justice. In the United Kingdom a Judge
who came to know of a minor share of a company to his wife immediately
withdrew from the case and there are number of matters worldwide on this
issue which has direct relevance to our Jurisdiction, where politics,
religious, social activism is intermingled in the Society above
principles Public Trust and Public Duty. Judges should not be dabbled in
public, political, social or religious discussions, environmental or any
form of NGOs in public and should not be in the “Public Eye” and
controversial. “Justice should not only be done but seem to be done” is
the most famous and accepted adage without which the citizen litigant
will lose trust on the Judiciary which will lead to the “Law of the
Jungle” and “survival of the fittest”.
Future of the Nation
Future of the Nation depends on the behaviours of the Executive,
Legislature and the Judiciary in the next few days. We have a
charismatic leader - President Mahinda Rajapaksa- who can be relied on
and depended on based on past performances, who has liberated the
citizen from the terror and terrorism that nation went through for 30
long years, in a short span of period of three years. We need a balanced
and trustworthy Judiciary for the fair adjudication with checks and
balances. It is an accepted fact that nobody is above law, including the
President with all mighty powers who had at one stage to say that his
powers are even not as powerful as the powers of a magistrate. Then who
has the power to supervise the Supreme Court which is not above law.
In theory it can summon any citizen and deal with on matters based on
inherent powers and the new found practices based on Public Interest
Litigation. Until constitutional arrangements are made the Supreme Court
itself could have self regulatory procedure by implementing the good
practices of decisions of higher benches which is in practice by great
jurists and Judges, taking into consideration that this is the final
Court in the final Temple of Justice.
Many litigants have been successful in winning cases against Sri
Lanka in the Committee of Human Rights in Geneva and the number of
applications has risen during the tenure of the former Chief Justice. We
see a beam of ray of hopes of a Judiciary accepted and loved by the
nation in time to come under the leader of the new Chief Justice who
needs some time patience, and hard work to put the matters in the right
order.
|