Sarath N. Silva

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2007)

Sarath Nanda Silva is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka.

He got his Primary and Secondary education at Trinity College Kandy and then at Sri Lanka College of Law, Sarath Nanda Silva holds a Master of Laws degree Magna Cum Laude from the University of Brussels. He was admitted as an Advocate of the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka in June 1967 and commenced his career in the Attorney General's department in 1968 as a Crown Counsel. He was promoted to Senior State Counsel in 1975 and Deputy Solicitor-General in 1979. Appointed as a Judge of the Court of Appeal in 1987, he became the President of the Court of Appeal in 1994.

[edit] Controversy and impeachment

Justice Silva was seen as close to President Chandrika Kumaratunga; he served under her as Attorney-General in 1996 and was appointed a President's Counsel the same year. His appointment as Chief Justice evoked widespread protest in the media, mainly because he was not the most senior judge in Sri Lanka and Chandrika Kumaratunga was perceived as using him to control the supreme court decisions. During last few years he had given many controversial supreme court decisions to satisfy the Executive President's political needs. His independence had been questioned and Justice Mark Fernando's premature retirement from the bench was said to be hastened by his behaviour.

There were a number of complaints against the Chief Justice's conduct: A 2002 book by Victor Ivan entitled The Unfinished Struggle exposed extensive misconduct and abuse of authority by Justice Silva during his time as Attorney-General and Chief Justice. According to the AHRC, there have been no official denial of the allegations made in the book, nor has the author been subjected to legal action.

In August 2001, the International Bar Association (IBA) concluded that there was "an overwhelming need for an independent credible judicial system" in Sri Lanka. It detailed instances of lack of accountability, breach of natural justice and potential for undue interference and pointed out that institutions which should be protecting the rule of law, including the President, government and the Chief Justice, were acting to undermine it.

The IBA said judges had been removed by the Chief Justice without enquiry and, in June 2001, a parliamentary opposition impeachment motion to remove him was restrained by the Supreme Court, of which he is head.

In the recent past there was a very embarrassing incident in which a police patrol investigated a car parked in a secluded area off the highway in the vicinity of the parliament and found the Chief Justice with a married lawyer who worked under him. The incident created banner headlines both for the awkwardness of the situation as well as the professional impropriety. After much public outrage the matter died a natural death due to official inaction.

[edit] Controversial Statements by Sarath N. Silva

Recently in a hearing of the fundamental rights application filed by world renowned film director Asoka Handagama challenging the government decision to ban the screening of his movie "Aksharaya" the CJ remarked “film should be destroyed instead of screening it “.In a very strong tone Sarath N. Silva stressed that strict measures would be taken against anyone who tarnishes the reputation of the courts and looked at the members of the public performance board comprising Doctor Somarathne Balasuriya, Tissa Abeysekara, Prasanna Vitharana and Ashoka Handagama and said “If the court did not exist none of you will be even able to walk in the road. You will have to have bodyguards. Don’t forget that”¹ . The Chief Justice further said that the offenders could be sentenced to jail for contempt of courts. He said that the artists could not do anything they wished. The Chief Justice also alluded that "the Chairman of the Public Performances Control Board was an impotent who could not be sensitive to a sex scene"².

In response the Free media Movement (FMM)said that CJ Sarath Nanda Silva's comments in open court on the film Aksharaya could have a chilling effect on the freedom of expression. The FMM pointed out that the Chief Justice has purportedly made remarks from the bench. They are a clear and unjustifiable intrusion upon freedom of expression in that they are in effect an imposition of the Chief Justice’s personal moral perspectives on the subject matter of the film, which the watchdog views as having grave implications for the freedom of expression³.