High Court Trial at Bar SC rules Bill inconsistent with Constitution

Published : 9:10 am  April 4, 2018 | No comments so far |  | 

(161)

 reads | 
  • Says Approval needs two-thirds majority

By Yohan Perera and Ajith Siriwadana   

The Supreme Court has informed the Speaker that certain sections of the Judicature (Amendment) Bill were inconsistent with the Constitution and that an amendment to the Constitution was necessary to give effect to these sections and required to be passed by a two-thirds majority.   

 

However, the SC determination has said if the jurisdiction is conferred on the High Courts of the provinces under article 154(P) (3)(c) like in Act No:10 of 1996 and Act No:54 of 2006, this particular section will cease to be inconsistent.   
The SC determination also said that amending section 12A(2) of the Bill requires the Judicial Service Commission to nominate judges to the permanent High Court at Bar which would be inconsistent with article 154(P)2 of the Constitution, and would require an amendment to the Constitution to give effect to the section of the Bill which requires a two-thirds majority. However, if 12A(2)of the Bill is removed and article 154P(2) remains, this inconsistency will cease.   

 

The SC determination has said if the jurisdiction is conferred on the High Courts of the provinces this particular section will cease to be inconsistent


The amending of section 12(A)(7) is inconsistent with article 12(1) of the Constitution. However, if the Chief Justice is given the power to decide whether to hold a trial at Bar or not, this amending section will cease to be inconsistent.

(161)