Sri Lanka Chief Justice appointments reveal decades of political tension, controversial choices, judicial removals and landmark decisions.
The history of the Sri Lanka Chief Justice reveals a complicated relationship between political power and judicial independence. Successive governments have appointed, promoted and, in one extraordinary case, removed the country’s most powerful judges.
The story stretches from the earliest years after independence to the current administration of President Anura Kumara Dissanayake. Throughout that history, governments have repeatedly faced the same difficult question: where does presidential authority end and judicial independence begin?
A veteran left-wing politician recently recalled the extraordinary hostility that Felix Dias Bandaranaike, Justice Minister in Sirimavo Bandaranaike’s United Front government, reportedly held towards the UNP.
The origins of that hostility, according to the account, went back to the earliest days of independent Sri Lanka.
Felix Dias’ father, Senior Felix Reginald Dias Bandaranaike, served as a Supreme Court judge. The Dias Bandaranaike family ranked among the country’s most distinguished legal families.
At independence, Felix Dias Bandaranaike was the most senior Supreme Court judge and fully qualified to become Chief Justice. However, Sri Lanka’s first Prime Minister, D. S. Senanayake, did not appoint him.
Instead, D.S. appointed Attorney General Arthur Wijewardene as independent Sri Lanka’s first local Chief Justice.
Felix Dias Bandaranaike reportedly felt deeply disappointed at losing the opportunity to become the country’s first Sri Lankan Chief Justice. His son, Junior Felix Dias, reportedly felt that disappointment even more strongly.
The account holds that Felix Dias viewed D.S. Senanayake’s decision as an injustice against his father. Consequently, he developed deep hostility towards the UNP.
In those early years, decisions on appointments to the office of Chief Justice and other senior judicial positions ultimately rested with the political leadership.
The Early Politics of Sri Lanka Chief Justice Appointments
The political cycle eventually turned, and Felix Dias Bandaranaike became Minister of Justice in the 1970 to 1977 government.
During this period, Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike’s brother, Barnes Ratwatte, served in a lower court. At the Prime Minister’s request, Felix Dias appointed his own relative, Barnes Ratwatte, as a Supreme Court judge.
The autobiography of J. R. Jayewardene describes the judiciary during Sirimavo Bandaranaike’s administration in highly critical terms.
According to the account cited on page 110, the United Front government worsened the situation by attempting to place politically partisan judges in senior judicial positions.
One appointee, the account states, had previously served as an SLFP Member of Parliament and worked as a provincial lawyer during the early 1960s.
Such appointments, along with what the account described as the obvious political bias of some judges, attracted criticism from opposition MPs and members of the public.
The dissatisfaction reportedly entered popular culture in an unusual way.
At cricket and football matches, spectators frustrated by a questionable decision, or one perceived as favouring the home team, would reportedly shout the names of judges they associated with controversial decisions.
“Ado…”
That was how spectators reportedly shouted those judges’ names at sporting events during that era.
J.R. Jayewardene came to power after accusing Sirimavo Bandaranaike and Felix Dias of damaging the judiciary.
After becoming President, he appointed his friend, President’s Counsel Neville Samarakoon, as Chief Justice.
It marked the first occasion in Sri Lankan history when a lawyer from private practice, rather than a serving judge, became Chief Justice.
In this way, J.R. Jayewardene, operating from Ward Place, reshaped the judiciary according to the political mandate his government received in 1977.
Chandrika Era Brings Another Battle Over Seniority
When Chandrika Kumaratunga came to power in 1994, G.P.S. de Silva served as Chief Justice.
He had reached the position after serving as President of the Court of Appeal and later as the most senior Supreme Court judge. President Ranasinghe Premadasa had appointed him.
When G.P.S. de Silva retired in 1999, Justice Mark Fernando stood next in line by seniority for appointment as Chief Justice.
However, Chandrika Kumaratunga did not favour him.
Her Justice Minister, G. L. Peiris, publicly argued that the judiciary was acting against the mandate received by Chandrika and the People’s Alliance in 1994.
He maintained that judges appointed during 17 years of UNP government were obstructing the administration’s progress.
At the time, Chandrika Kumaratunga had entrusted Attorney General Sarath N. Silva with a leading role in investigating allegations of corruption and violence during the previous 17 years of UNP rule.
Sarath Silva also led Presidential Commissions examining alleged corruption and violence from that period.
When G.P.S. de Silva’s term ended, Chandrika Kumaratunga appointed Sarath Silva as Chief Justice. The appointment placed a key figure in her administration’s investigative programme at the head of the judiciary.
When Mahinda Rajapaksa became President in 2005, Sarath Silva remained Chief Justice.
Following Sarath Silva’s departure, Mahinda Rajapaksa appointed Ashoka de Silva, who was next in line by seniority. He later appointed Shirani Bandaranayake as Chief Justice.
That appointment eventually led to one of the most controversial episodes in Sri Lanka’s judicial history.
After Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake delivered a ruling against Basil Rajapaksa’s Divi Neguma project, impeachment proceedings began against her.
She was removed from office, and Mahinda Rajapaksa appointed Mohan Peiris as Chief Justice. Mahinda had previously appointed Mohan Peiris as legal adviser to the Cabinet.
Mahinda Rajapaksa had also earlier appointed Mohan Peiris as Attorney General while he was working in private legal practice. At that time, he was not serving in the Attorney General’s Department.
From the 2015 Transition to the Gotabaya Presidency
When the Maithripala Sirisena and Ranil Wickremesinghe government took office in 2015, Mohan Peiris immediately faced pressure to leave the position of Chief Justice.
The new administration viewed him as an obstacle to the mandate it claimed to have received to prosecute individuals accused of corruption.
Mohan Peiris left the position.
When Gotabaya Rajapaksa became President in 2019, Jayantha Jayasuriya served as Chief Justice.
The Maithripala Sirisena and Ranil Wickremesinghe administration had appointed him.
Before becoming Chief Justice, Jayantha Jayasuriya had not served as a judge of either the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal. He had served as Attorney General under the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration.
The government appointed him Chief Justice despite the presence of more senior judges.
Nevertheless, after winning the presidency in 2019, Gotabaya Rajapaksa did not remove or replace him.
When Anura Kumara Dissanayake became President in 2024, Jayantha Jayasuriya remained Chief Justice.
After his retirement, President Dissanayake appointed Murdu Fernando, one of the Supreme Court’s most senior judges, as Chief Justice.
Following her retirement, the President appointed another senior Supreme Court judge, Preethi Padman Surasena.
Preethi Padman Surasena and a Record of Major Rulings
Justice Preethi Padman Surasena built a reputation for significant and politically sensitive decisions during his judicial career.
While serving as a High Court judge, he became known as a fearless judge after sentencing those convicted of the acid attack on former Auditor General Lalith Ambanwela.
The sentences ranged from 10 to 70 years in prison.
After President Maithripala Sirisena appointed him to the Court of Appeal, the country entered a major constitutional confrontation.
President Sirisena attempted what the article describes as a constitutional coup by removing Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and appointing Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister.
Justice Preethi Padman Surasena ruled against that move.
His order prevented Mahinda Rajapaksa, then one of the country’s most popular political leaders, from serving as Prime Minister. The decision became a landmark judgment.
Before President Sirisena left office, Justice Surasena also issued an interim order preventing the Cabinet from gifting Sirisena the Paget Road official residence.
His decisions also challenged the Ranil Wickremesinghe administration.
In 2018, Justice Surasena ruled that Ranil Wickremesinghe’s removal as Prime Minister was unconstitutional.
Then, in 2023, President Wickremesinghe maintained that the government lacked funds to conduct local government elections.
Justice Surasena ruled that the Secretary to the Ministry of Finance must release the money allocated for the election and proceed with it.
Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena has therefore delivered rulings against two Presidents and one Prime Minister.
The Next Decision Facing President Anura Kumara Dissanayake
In 2024, voters brought Anura Kumara Dissanayake to power with a mandate centred on taking action against corruption.
Against that political background, the article argues that Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena’s judicial record makes him well suited to the current period.
However, he is due to retire at the end of this year.
That approaching retirement will place another important decision before President Dissanayake.
Sri Lanka’s political history shows that appointments to the office of Chief Justice have often occurred during moments of political tension, constitutional confrontation and disputes over government mandates.
Some administrations followed seniority. Others departed from it. Some selected serving judges, while others reached into the Attorney General’s Department or private legal practice.
The history also shows why the next appointment will attract close attention.
President Dissanayake must balance two objectives. His government seeks to fulfil its mandate to pursue corruption, while the judiciary must remain independent from the political objectives of any administration.
The challenge is therefore larger than selecting one individual for one office.
As Sri Lanka’s long history of judicial appointments demonstrates, the method, timing and political context of a Chief Justice appointment can shape public perceptions of the judiciary for years.
President Dissanayake must therefore move carefully. In pursuing accountability, his administration must not weaken judicial independence. Equally, protecting judicial independence cannot become an excuse for obstructing the lawful pursuit of corruption.
Sri Lanka’s history offers many warnings about what happens when political power and judicial authority become too closely connected. The next decision will test whether the country has learned from them.
SOURCE:- SRI LANKA GUARDIAN
In my opinion the biggest blunder in appointing Chief Justices was that of Sarath Silva who publicly admitted giving a blatantly biased decision on the Helping Hambantota case.
He made an ass of himself in costing up to MR. Now a lost ball!