PBJ judgement:
President free of appoint respondent as Treasury Secretary -
Court
Sarath Malalasekera and Wasantha Ramanayake
The Supreme Court decided that the President, being the appointing
authority in terms of Article 52 of the Constitution, would be free to
consider appointing the eighth Respondent-Petitioner to the Post of
Secretary to the Ministry of Finance, notwithstanding the undertaking
given to Court by the Eighth Respondent-petitioner.
The Supreme Court Bench comprised of Chief Justice Asoka de Silva,
Justice Shirani Bandaranayake, Justice Shiranee Tilakawardene, Justice
Saleem Marsoof PC, Justice Jagath Balapatabendi, Justice, K. Sri Pavan
and Justice P. A. Ratnayake.
However, this Court holds that in terms of Article 132 (1) (iii)
where the Chief Justice is of the opinion that the matter raised is of
general and public importance, he may constitute a Bench of five or more
Judges to hear the matter.
Accordingly, the Court over-rules the preliminary objections and
permits President’s Counsel Faiz Mustapha to make his submissions.
Court having considered the submissions of Counsel and Nihal Sri
Amarasekera who appeared in person, refuses the relief sought in
paragraphs (a) and (b) of the prayer to the amended petition dated July
31, 2009. However, the Court is inclined to grant other relief under
paragraph (c) of the prayer to the said amended Petition.
Accordingly, by majority decision (Justice Shiranee Tilakawardene
dissenting) the Court decides that the President, being the appointing
authority in terms of Article 52 of the Constitution, would be free to
consider appointing the eighth Respondent-petitioner to the post of
Secretary to the Ministry of Finance, notwithstanding the undertaking
given to court by the eighth Respondent-Petitioner.
The Supreme Court Bench reserved the reasons for the decisions to be
given in due course.
At the outset Counsel M. A. Sumanthiran submits to Court that the
Petitioner -eighth respondent in this case seeks to vacate the order
dated October 10, 2008. In that context, this application should be
heard by the same Bench or as far as possible the same Bench, that made
the earlier order. Only if that Bench is of that opinion can the Chief
Justice constitute a fuller Bench for clarification or for continuation.
Attorneys M. A. Sumanthiran with Viran Corea appeared for the
petitioner.
President’s Counsel Faiz Mustapha with Anura Meddegoda and Lakdini
Perera appeared for the eighth respondent-petitioner.
Attorney General President’s Counsel Mohan Pieris with Additional
Solicitor General J. Wijetilleke, Deputy Solicitor General Sanjaya
Rajaratnam and Senior State Counsel Nerin Pulle appeared as amicus.
Nihal Sri Amarasekera appeared in person. |