Judge transfer controversy in Jaffna raises serious rule of law concerns as lawyers warn of possible executive pressure on the judiciary.
The judge transfer controversy involving Jaffna High Court Judge A.G. Alexrajah has triggered fresh alarm over the rule of law and judicial independence in Sri Lanka.
The backbone of any democratic state is the rule of law. If that backbone is weakened, especially the principle of separation of powers between the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary, the entire social order is placed at risk.
That is why the sudden transfer of Jaffna High Court Judge Mr. A.G. Alexrajah, now widely discussed within legal circles and civil society, has become more than an administrative matter. It has raised serious questions about whether the independence of the judiciary in Sri Lanka is once again coming under pressure.
Sudden Transfer Raises Questions
Judge A.G. Alexrajah was appointed as Judge of the Jaffna High Court on April 22, 2026.
However, before even one month had passed, he was suddenly transferred to the Badulla Civil Appellate High Court, with effect from May 31.
Transfers within the public service and judicial service are not unusual. But in this case, the timing has created deep suspicion.
The most serious concern is that the transfer came after the judge had issued several interim orders against the Governor of the Northern Province, who is a representative of the Executive, in a petition where the Governor was named as a respondent.
For many observers, this sequence of events has created an unavoidable question: was this simply an administrative decision, or was it a response to judicial decisions that displeased political authority?
Jaffna Lawyers Write To President
The Jaffna Lawyers’ Association is not prepared to treat the matter as a routine transfer.
The Association has already sent a letter to President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, pointing out that there is serious suspicion that the transfer may have resulted from pressure or influence exerted by the Governor and other political authorities against the judge’s decisions.
The lawyers have strongly urged the President to adopt a “Zero Tolerance” policy against any form of executive influence on judicial matters.
Their intervention has turned the issue into a major test of the government’s commitment to judicial independence and constitutional governance.
JSC And Constitutional Safeguards
Under Sri Lanka’s legal framework, the Judicial Service Commission has the authority over the appointment and transfer of lower court and High Court judges.
The JSC is expected to function independently, without political interference or executive pressure.
However, the fact that such a transfer occurred through the commission immediately after a judicial decision involving a political authority has created legitimate public suspicion about whether the independence of the commission itself has been affected.
The concern is not merely about one judge. It is about whether the system that protects judges from political pressure remains strong enough.
Article 111(c) of the Constitution also plays a central role in this debate. This provision strictly prohibits any person from interfering with or influencing the work of a judicial officer.
Such interference is an offence punishable by imprisonment for up to one year.
If any political hand was involved behind the transfer of Judge Alexrajah, it would not only be a matter of bad governance. It would amount to a direct violation of the Constitution.
Is History Repeating?
Executive attempts to weaken or pressure the judiciary are not new in Sri Lanka’s history.
| Year | Incident | Outcome and Executive Influence |
|---|---|---|
| 2013 | Impeachment of the 43rd Chief Justice, Shirani Bandaranayake | Following rulings against the Divi Neguma Bill, political power was allegedly used to remove the Chief Justice from office. |
| 2023 | Mullaitivu Magistrate T. Saravanaraja incident | Due to cases including the Kurundi Viharaya matter, the judge reportedly faced political and life threats, forcing him to leave the country. |
| 2026 | Transfer of Jaffna High Court Judge A.G. Alexrajah | After issuing rulings against the Governor, he received a sudden transfer before even 40 days had passed. |
In the 1970s, the Sirimavo Bandaranaike government brought District Courts and Magistrates’ Courts under the direct control of the Ministry of Justice. That move severely weakened judicial independence.
In 1982, the J.R. Jayewardene government extended the retirement age of then-Chief Justice Sirimalee Fernando, setting a troubling precedent for the manipulation of judicial appointments.
In 1999, President Chandrika Kumaratunga’s government was accused of attempting to pressure the Supreme Court to reverse its position in the parliamentary dissolution case after an unfavourable decision.
In 2012, the Mahinda Rajapaksa government impeached Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake, an act widely condemned internationally as a direct assault on the independence of the judiciary.
These examples remain painful reminders of what can happen when executive power begins to cast its shadow over the courts.
Justice Must Be Seen
A principle regarded as central to modern legal philosophy was famously stated in the 1924 British case R v Sussex Justices:
“Not only must justice be done; it must also be seen to be done.”
The authorities responsible for the transfer may argue that Judge Alexrajah was moved only for administrative reasons.
But to the ordinary citizen, the incident may create a far more dangerous impression: that even judges may have to pay a price for ruling against those connected to power.
That perception alone is damaging.
At a time when Sri Lanka is trying to rebuild public trust in state institutions and the justice system, especially among the people of the Northern Province, such incidents can deeply weaken confidence in the courts.
The issue is not only about Judge Alexrajah. It affects every citizen who may one day have to go before a court against a government authority, public official, or politically connected person.
The question is simple but frightening: will the judge hearing such a case be able to deliver a decision without fear or favour?
The shadow of political power falling across the courtroom must be stopped immediately.
It is now the responsibility of the President and the current government to conduct a broad and independent investigation into the suspicion raised by the Jaffna Lawyers’ Association.
The legal community, civil society, and the citizens of Sri Lanka are watching closely.
