Bench, Bar welcome new Supreme Court Judge Justice K. Sripavan

Sarath Malalasekera

The Bench and the Bar welcomed new Supreme Court Judge Justice K. Sripavan at a ceremonial sitting held at the Superior Court Complex recently.

Associated on the Bench with Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva PC, were Justice Dr. Shirani Bandaranayake, Justice, Asoka de Silva, Justice Nimal Gamini Amaratunga, Justice Shiranee Tillakawardena, Justice Andrew M. Somawansa, Justice Saleem Marsoof PC, Justice Jagath Balapatabendi and Justice K. Sripavan.

Court of Appeal Judges, Commercial High Court Judges, High Court Judges, Colombo District Judge, Additional District Judges, Colombo Chief Magistrate and Colombo Additional Magistrates were on the dias.

President’s Counsel, Senior and Junior members of the Official and Unofficial Bar and relatives of Justice K. Sripavan were among the distinguished gathering.

Supreme Court Registrar Bandula Atapattu and Deputy Registrar Ms. Ratnayake officiated.

The State too has a duty of ensuring that Judges have the means necessary to accomplish their tasks properly and in this process it is essential that Judges be provided with the resources necessary to enable them to perform their functions, said new Supreme Court Judge , Justice Sripavan at the ceremonial sitting.

Justice Sripavan said the separation of the judiciary from the other branches of the State is an important aspect of the separation of powers required by the Constitution and is essential to the proper functioning of the courts.

The separation required between the Legislature and the Executive on the one hand and the Courts on the other must be upheld otherwise the role of courts as an independent arbiter of issues between citizen and various spheres of the Government and the legality of the executive action measured against the fundamental rights and other provisions of the Constitution would be undermined.

“When I assumed office as a judge of the Court of Appeal in 2002, I remarked at the ceremonial function that success and efficiency of the administration of Justice depend as much on the judges who are engaged in the task of adjudication as on the lawyers who practise before them and help them in that task.

Today, I am happy to note that thought undaunted by the heavy work load in the Court of Appeal I was able to reduce the backlog of cases to a greater extent with the assistance and support given by my sister and brother judges and the distinguished members of the Bar.”

“I think this is an appropriate occasion to recall the words of a former President of the Bar Association who speaking on the “Legal Profession” made the following vigorous observations: “The legal profession is said to exist for the benefit of its clients and for the proper administration of justice criminal or civil.

It works to resolve formally and informally disputes between citizens and the State and to assist people in pursuing their rights, and understanding their obligations. An efficient judiciary is vitally important if the judicatory process is to operate according to public expectations.”

In a fast changing society the people’s need for legal service is as diverse as the events in their lives. The role of the legal profession in a contemporary society must therefore be examined in depth.

An independent, effective and competent legal profession is fundamental to the upholding of the Rule of Law and the independence of the Judiciary. Both the judges and the lawyers are now concerned about laws delays. “Delay” in the context of Justice denotes the time consumed in the disposal of a case in excess of the time within which a case can be reasonably expected to be decided by court. No one expects a case to be decided overnight.

However, the difficulty arises when the actual time taken for disposal of a case far exceeds its expected lifespan and that is where the affected party complains of delay in the dispensation of justice.

A scanning of figures in the Court of Appeal would show that despite efforts being made at various levels and substantial increase in the output being given by the system, the gap between the expected and actual lifespan of the cases is only widening.

With the rising of literacy level, proliferation of TV channels and increase in the readership of newspapers there is growing awareness of legal rights resulting in substantial increase in the institution of cases. The desire for quick and affordable justice is universal. Any increase in the number of cases on account of better awareness of the legal rights is a commendable development and shall not be a cause for concern.

Nevertheless, the pendency of cases is always highlighted whereas the increase in institution on account of number of factors and the increase in disposal despite constraints faced by the system is not always appreciated; but still we cannot deny the responsibility of the system and its functionaries to deliver an efficient justice to the people. On the other hand, the arrears of work cannot be diminished by diluting the quality of the judiciary.

“One of the remedies is to implement effective Court Management or Docket control in order to deal with the pending cases. “Court Management” has now become a science in other parts of the world involving case flow management which is study of the time taken at various stages of the litigation and to fix time limits to make submissions in order to conclude the cases.

By practising the method with the co-operation of the Bar, I am confident that it is possible to have a case ready for disposal within a specified period of time.”

Sufficient and sustainable funding should be provided to enable the judiciary to perform its functions to highest standards. Such funds once voted for the judiciary should be protected from alienation or misuse. The allocation or withholding of funding shall not be used as a means of exercising improper control over the judiciary. The State must take every endeavour to guarantee these requirements preferably by means of legislation.”

Mr. Attorney, Mr. Dayaratne I am now privileged to be a member of the Apex Court of Sri Lanka which in the past was adorned by eminent judges of sterling quality coupled with undaunting courage and determination.

The knowledge and experience gained during my stay in the Attorney Generals’ Department for almost 24 years and the judicial life led during the past six years will no doubt lend support to discharge my judicial functions without fear or favour.

I take pride in mentioning that His Lordship G.P.S. De Silva, former Chief Justice and, His Lordship Sarath N. Silva, the present Chief Justice were two of my supervising officers at the Attorney General’s Department in the year 1978 amongst Justices Kulatunga and Priyantha Perera. I wish to place on record my indebtedness and gratitude to the Department, my training ground which in the past produced many distinguished judges of this Court.”

“Perfection in performance of judicial functions is not achieved solely by the judge himself. It is a combined effort of the Bench, the Bar and the public acceptance of the authority of the judiciary. Any genuine effort of mine at selecting the most appropriate words to express my deep sense of gratitude to my sister and brother judges would certainly be unsuccessful as my obligation to them is beyond description.