Supreme Court to inquire judges’ grievance

Wasantha Ramanayake

The Supreme Court yesterday decided to inquire into the alleged continuing rights violations of the High Court, District Court, Magistrate Court and other primary court judges.

The Bench comprised Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva PC, Justice Nimal Gamini Amaratunga and Justice Jagath Balapatabendi.

Senior State Counsel on behalf of the respondents submitted that the respondent Salary and Cadre Commission is considering the issue i.e., an appropriate salary structure for judges and to recommend the judiciary be separate from the public service in the matter of salaries and other prerequisites.

Justice Nimal Gamini Amaratunga noted that under the present salary equation if judges get a salary increase, the members of the legislature too get an automatic salary increment.

President’s Counsel D.S. Wijesinghe for the petitioners submitted that the respondents failed to consider the distinctive character and the unique powers and functions of the judiciary.

The President’s Counsel submitted that the salary structure does not compensate the special nature of the work and sacrifices judges have to make. He argued that the salary revisions are essential to safeguard the independence of the judiciary and promoting public confidence in the administration of Justice.

Although the petitioners were given an assurance the first respondent, no recommendations had been made to the Cabinet of Ministers with regard to any salary increase, the counsel submitted.

The President’s Counsel submitted that the equation with regard to the allowances of the members of the legislature and the salaries of the members of the Judiciary is arbitrary.

He submitted that an Minister’s allowance is equal to the salary of a Supreme Court Judge and that of a Deputy Minister is equal to the salary of a judge of the Court of Appeal. The allowance of a MP is equal to the salary of a High Court Judge.

The President’s Counsel submitted that this equation severely affect the judges’ salary revision since there is a strong public opinion against the increase of the allowance of Parliamentarians.

He pointed that although Ministers, Deputy Ministers and Parliamentarians could engage in other professions/businesses, judges or their immediate family members could not do so. Petitioners High Court Judges’ Association, its President D.S.C. Lecamwasam, Secretary Thilak Thabrew, Judicial Services Association, its President Sisira Rathnayake and Secretary N.B. Karunarathna complained to the Court that the Salaries and Cadre Commission had failed to grant an increased salary and separate salary structure for judges and the failure to treat judiciary from the Public Service are continuing violations of rights of members of the petitioners.

The petitioners cited Co-Chairmen and members of the Salaries and Cadre Commission, Secretary to the Treasury, Secretary to the Judicial Services Commission, Secretary to the Cabinet of Ministers, Secretary to the Ministry of Justice and the Attorney General as respondents.

The petitioners sought to recommend the Cabinet of Ministers to increase salaries of members of the Petitioners’ Associations and an appropriate salary structure for judges from January 1, 2007 and to recommend the judiciary be separate from the public service in the matter of salaries and other perquisites.

D.S. Wijesinghe PC with Jayampathi Wickremarathne PC appeared for the petitioners. The hearing was fixed for May 12.