21 October, 2020

Blog

Rohini Marasinghe And The Proportionality As A Ground Of Judicial Review

By Lakshman I.Keerthisinghe –

Lakshman Keerthisinghe

“We as judges of this land must take the lead from our departed friend and colleague, that no bullets of any calibre, knives of any depth, clubs of any weight, shall ever deter us from taking the exalted and well traversed path to do justice for all those who come before us.” – Rohini Perera J, Secretary of the High Court Judges Association.(2004)

The above mentioned words of Justice Rohini Perera, formerly Judge of the High Court of Colombo (presently Rohini Marasinghe Justice of the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka) in her oration delivered at the funeral of late Justice Sarath Ambepitiya, in the year 2004, in essence epitomized the values and the principles held sacred by the judiciary of our land at all times. Her Ladyship’s recent speech at the ceremonial sitting held to welcome Her Ladyship to the Bench of the Supreme Court carries a very valuable analysis as to the relationship of the judiciary with the executive. It was stated that the judges in the apex court should not consider themselves prisoners in an ivory tower. They should periodically leave such an enclosure and commence a dialogue with the Executive arm of government. The relationship between the Executive arm of government and the Judiciary should be a cordial one evoking mutual respect to each other,

Justice Rohini Marasinghe

Her Ladyship further stated that; “There is a most pointed reference to this relationship which Lord Phillips, the Lord Chief Justice of England made in a speech to the Commonwealth Law Conference, held in Nairobi, on September 12, 2007”. Justice Rohini Marasinghe quoted Lord Phillip to have said, “I have always believed that it is important, if possible, for judges to maintain good relations with ministers. I have to date managed to achieve this, both with the Home Secretary and with the Lord Chancellors – it is important at such meetings the line is clearly drawn between what are and what are not appropriate areas of discussion and ministers are, in my experience, quick to accept if a topic is “off limits”.

Justice Marasinghe further said that the Latimer House Guidelines encouraged the judiciary and the government to have periodical dialogues without compromising judicial independence, “We all swear an oath to administer justice without fear or favour affection or ill-will. Judicial independence requires that judges should be true to that oath and if the rule of law is really to prevail, the individual citizen must be confident that the judges will apply the law to them without fear or favour affection or ill-will. Justice Marasinghe quite correctly vowed that Her Ladyship shall be true to that oath until the relinquishment of the office and stepping down from the august office which Her Ladyship has now begun to hold.

The new Supreme Court Judge said sometimes laws are made by parliament to provide the country with security and social justice. When such laws come before the courts raising their Constitutional validity, the Courts should take a broader view of the social policies engaged by such legislation and show some consideration for its usefulness and its larger benefits to the country. There are many laws in many countries which are enacted targeted towards social development and security concerns. The Judges when considering the validity of such laws should not take purely a legalistic view of the Constitution, but a broader view of its necessity for securing social justice, social cohesion and economic development,

Her Ladyship’s speech in essence refers to the Doctrine of Proportionality, which is applied as a ground of judicial review of administrative action across continental Europe, and necessarily grants the judiciary wider powers to consider the merits of a decision. Broadly, it necessitates an assessment of the balance between interests and objectives. The decision made must be proved to have been necessary to meet a legitimate aim, and the most reasonable way of doing so. The modern procedural definition of the proportionality test is relatively clear. Tom Hickman, while acknowledging various different models, identified the most common formulation as a three-part procedure. The reviewing court must consider:

1) Whether the measure was suitable to achieve the desired objective.

2) Whether the measure was necessary for achieving the desired objective.

3) Whether, even so, the measure imposed excessive burdens on the individual it affected.

The third element is often termed proportionality stricta sensa and is the provision that requires balancing of interests.

The doctrine of proportionality in its present form is of European origin. A product of interpretation of Platonic and Cicerian theory, the concept was first applied in Prussia in the late 18th Century as the law was codified on Rechtsstaat (‘constitutional state’) lines, and refined by the German courts in the 19th Century. The principle took further hold in continental Europe after the Second World War, when proportionality became embedded in the new German constitution. It was then taken up by the European Court of Human Rights upon its founding in 1959, and later by the fledgling European Community as a conceptual ‘meta principle of judicial governance’.

After the UK’s belated entry into the European Community in 1973, whenever the UK courts have addressed the legality of government action within an area of Community competence, it has been necessary to recognize proportionality as a distinct and substantive ground of review.  Since the courts first began applying the doctrine academic and judicial suggestions that proportionality should be in some way incorporated into domestic UK law have been regular. Moreover, pressure for reform has increased markedly since the assent of the Human Rights Act (1998), which has required use of the doctrine in cases that involve the breach of ECHR rights. The most common suggestion, and the subject of this study, has been to establish proportionality as a separate full ground of judicial review.UK courts have been applying the proportionality doctrine since 1973 in EU cases, and from that date suggestions have been made that the test is deserving of a place in UK administrative law as a full head of review.

In conclusion, simply put proportionality as a ground of judicial review involves a balancing of interests by the Court. This balancing more often than not tilts more towards the majority public interest when compared with individual rights/It is essential that the judiciary and .the legal profession maintain a cordial relationship with the executive for the greater benefit of the litigants and the public at large. A more mature moderate impartial and consensual understanding is required from all parties in order to achieve this precious goal and Justice Marasinghe’s recent speech at the ceremonial sitting delivered subsequent to Her Ladyship’s over three decades of experience as a senior career judge would undoubtedly be a valuable guide in achieving this end.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 0
    0

    I don’t think she understands a word about these things. Must be her husband’s writing. (Dr Lakshman Marasinghe). Curiously, many of her judgments refer to Canadian law and Dr Marasinghe is a Canadian legal academic. Her recent ‘performance’ when MR met Court of Appeal judges during the impeachment shows her true self. At the meeting, she said that most Court of Appeal judges did not approve of the decision (by Justices Sriskandarajah, Salam and Gunaratne) quashing the Select Commitee report on the impeachment. Then Srskandarajah has asked each judge whether they were against the judgement and no one said they were against. Then MR saw that coming colours were not good and changed the subject. She will be a good lackey of Cheap Justice Mohan Peris.

  • 0
    0

    Whatever be the merits of the strange argument that equates the doctrine of proportionality with judges maintaining cordial relations with the executive, there is a much more serious issue here.

    A substantial amount of this article is plagiarised from Theo Barclay, ‘The proportionality test in UK Administrative Law – a new ground of review or a fading exception?’, The Student Law Journal, Issue 3: January 2012, available at: http://www.sjol.co.uk/issue-3/proportionality

    Mr Keerthisinghe, who I believe is an attorney-at-law with several law degrees, should know that if any law student pulled the stunt he has here, he would not only be failed but also face very serious disciplinary action. In Sri Lanka these days, perhaps the damage to Mr Keerthisinghe’s credibility will be somewhat lighter.

    • 0
      0

      Excellent work Asanga.

      Laxman Keerthisinghe put whatever credibility he had on the line in the service of his master and his lackey In the supreme court Rohini Marasinghe and got caught out. How low some educated people will go to defend men who do evil to others from positions of power. I am sure even the evil Rajapaksa has no respect for such arselickers.

      • 0
        0

        Piranha
        Ur caustic comments admirably fit the pseudonym u have chosen to describe yourself as ‘piranhas are fishes that are aggressive, insatiable predators’. Wikepedia Have u heard the story about casting pearls before swine.

        • 0
          0

          The venom in my language is directed only at people who are hero-worshipping a man who is destroying democracy and the democratic institutions of the country, abusing his power, pillaging the country and raiding the national coffers for the benefit of himself, his family and his cronies.

          Only Rajapaksa, of all national leaders since the tamil insurgency started over thirty years ago, was able to defeat LTTE terrorism and thus had the golden opportunity to unite the races and bring peace and prosperity to the entire country. You can see the sorry state the country is in today in all aspects of life for the people. Internationally also the country is fast becoming a pariah state, if not it is already one. Educated people like you are blinded by Rajapaksa’s devious charm and fail to see the fascist and racist in him. You also fail to see that the man is destroying the country and its reputation.

          Do I have the attributes of a Piranha? Only for blind Rajapaksa worshippers!!

          • 0
            0

            Piranha
            Unfortunately U are blinded by the propaganda spreAd by the TGTE AND THE DIASPORA AIDED BY THEIR WESTERN ALLIES TO DESTABILISE THE PRESENT GOVERNMENT AND ESTABLISH A PUPPET REGIME IN OUR MOTHERLAND TO ACHIEVE A SEPARATE STATE OF EELAM IN THE NORTH AND EAST OF SRI LANKA.NO MAN IS INFALLIBLE BUT U, IF U ARE A SRI LANKAN, SHOULD APPRECIATE THE GREAT SERVICE DONE BY THE SECURITY FORCES UNDER THE ABLE LEADERSHIP OF PRESIDENT RAJAPAKSA TO RID SRI LANKA OF THE SEPARATIST TERRORI8ST WHICH NO OTHER GOVERNMENT IN THE WORLD HAS BEEN ABLE TO DO.DO NOT BE CARRIED AWAY BY PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT SEPARATISM IN OUR MOTHERLAND AND GRAB ANY OPPORTUNITY TO FIND FAULT WITH THE PRESENT REGIME.THE SERVICE THE REGIME HAS RENDERED IS IMMEASUREBLE IN SAVING OUR MOTHERLAND FROM THE GRIP OF THE DIABOLICAL TERRORISTS.EBEN OUR BRETHREN IN THE NORTH AGEE.WHERE WERE U WHEN THE TERRORISTS WERE DEVASTATING OUR MOTHERLAND FOR NEARLY THREE DECADES?

            • 0
              0

              Mr. Keerthisinghe,
              Before your claim for Sinhala patriotism, can you please respond to Asanga Welikala’s accusation of plagiarism ?
              You immediately and conveniently hang on other comments without responding to Asanga’s clear and direct accusation. Why ?
              Also, tell the readers here, Can a shameless plagiarist be a patriot ?
              AS

            • 0
              0

              Mr Keerthisingle

              Your beloved motherland, saved by Mahinda the Great Leader, is teetering on the verge of collapse on all fronts, Mr Keerthisinghe. The Great Leader is trying to make the country into another North Korea under the perpetual leadership of his family. Like in North Korea he is building edifices with his name-plate that he hopes will immortalise him forever. The suffering masses are being deceived by him playing a victim to imagined foreign enemies like India and the West to consolidate his grip on power. You are part and parcel of this deception who hopes to benefit for the services to the dictator.

              So, keep eulogising the dictator and I am sure the crumbs from his dinner table will fall your way if you lie at his feet and keep your mouth open. There will be a time the Great Leader will get sick of people like you who have no self respect. Await a nasty kick into the kerb when your usefulness is exhausted and the Great Leader has achieved his evil aims.

            • 0
              0

              Piranha
              Ur refusal to comment on the suffering of the Sri Lankan people under the blood thirsty,blood sucker Prabakaran and his cohorts for nearly three decades indicates that u are a lackey of Rudrakumaran and the TGTE .IT MAY BE THAT U ARE OPENING UR BLOODSUCKING PIRANHA MOUTH AT HIS FEET AND EATING THE CRUMBS THAT FALL FROM HIS TABLE.IT IS UNGRATEFUL SLIMY PREDATORS LIKE u WHO WERE HIDING IN THE DEEP OCEAN AT THE TIME OF THE SUFFERING OF SRI LANKANS WHO SHOULD BE ASHAMED AS u ARE ATTEMPTING TO DIVIDE OUR MOTHERLAND WITH UR SHAMELESS SEPARATIST AGENDA.AS I DO NOT WISH TO WASTE MY TIME WITH PEOPLE LIKE U THIS ARGUMENT IS NOW CLOSED.UR HATRED FOR THE PRESENT REGIME FOR THE KILLING OF UR GREAT DAIABOLICAL LEADER PRABHAKARAN HAS MADE U A VERY VICIOUS PERSON JUDGING BY UR OBNOXIOUS WORTHLESS COMMENTS.
              GOOD BYE

  • 0
    0

    In recent years people form their own views of various characters who go as Judges – both in the lower and Appelate Courts. It is such a pity, like what politics has now become, if sections of the judiciary also become some form of “business”

    What indeed is to be understood by the expression “the doctrine of proportionality – with judges maintaining cordial relations with the executive…” To begin with judges should have as minimal a contact with the executive if the process of law is to maintain its independence and integrity. In any society if judges become pliable play things of the executive, that society can no longer be considered
    a free society ruled by the due process of law.

    Senguttuvan

    • 0
      0

      MR.SENGUTHUVAN,
      Having cordial relations with the executive does not mean that judges should give judgements in favour of the executive when the executive had abused its discretionary powers in dealing with citizens.It means that a judge should not become antagonistic towards the executive when such judge’s spouse is charged in Court with some offense and BY BIASED JUDGEMENTS obstruct legislation which is brought in greater public interest being passed by the legislature.Another example is the acquisition of RESIDENTIAL houses to expand a roadway for public purpose.This is an instance when the majority public interest OVERTAKES INDIVIDUAL SELF INTEREST FOR THE GREATER GOOD OF THE PUBLIC.THAT IS THE BASIS OF PROPORTIONALITY.I HOPE U UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE NOW.

      • 0
        0

        The pain you take to “explain” your position is so rudimentary the emphasis itself is superfluous. When lawyers, even judges, take their oaths they pledge to uphold the law and promise to
        abide by principles of justice – natural and that developed via the labour of men and women excelling in jurisprudence. There is very little need for “understanding” here – even by average students in the distinction between private and public interest.

        I agree with you, however, on your remarks about one who used the system to personal benefit of self and kin – and now knee-deep
        in trouble. That was because of patronage offered and enjoyed then that assured a certain degree of impunity. We certainly are not out of the culture entirely. It continues with the same patrons but different beneficiaries.

        Senguttuvan

      • 0
        0

        keerthisinghe, what a joke, I used to read your articles in the papers. What a waste of time.You are qualifies.Lakhaman Keethisinghe A.,L.( ares lickers)

        • 0
          0

          Capricon
          U are displaying the level of ur breeding by ur choice of the words used in ur valueless comments.If u can not comprehend what is said in an article get some help from a knowledgeable person to get it explained to u.

    • 0
      0

      In my religion it is said that the Judges will be among the first to be judged on Judgement day….. Now I am convinced more, because there is no one to judge them effectively on earth…. At least on earth a judges boss is his own conscious /heart….

  • 0
    0

    I would like to introduce and amendment if her ladyship agrees

    “We as judges of this land must take the lead from our departed friend and colleague, that no bullets of any calibre, knives of any depth, clubs of any weight and no politicians of any colour shall ever deter us from taking the exalted and well traversed path to do justice for all those who come before us.”

    Essentially the challenge to the Judiciary today is the political interference from the Executive and the Legislature. In our neighbourhodd the judiciary of Pakistan and India would be good examples to follow.

    With regard to the following comment by the author, I would like to comment.

    “In conclusion, simply put proportionality as a ground of judicial review involves a balancing of interests by the Court. This balancing more often than not tilts more towards the majority public interest when compared with individual rights/It is essential that the judiciary and the legal profession maintain a cordial relationship with the executive for the greater benefit of the litigants and the public at large.”

    This is where the whole system is compromised. The balancing act suggested by the author is subjective not objective. The Judiciary is expected to hold the balance of justice not to perform a balancing act on behalf of the Executive.

  • 0
    0

    Mr.Asanga Welikala
    U are quite correct,I accept Ur statement and call upon CT to mention the source of material on proportionality as Theo Barclay, ‘The proportionality test in UK Administrative Law – a new ground of review or a fading exception?’, The Student Law Journal, Issue 3: January 2012,for which I AM GRATEFUL.
    I REGRET THE SAID OVERSIGHT AND APOLOGIZE TO THE READERS FOR IT.

    • 0
      0

      Mr.Welikala
      As some readers have shown their interest in legal research as to the sources in which the doctrine of proportionality is found,I give below the article from which Theo Barclay got his material on the subject.Pl. read T. Hickman, “Proportionality: Comparative Law Lessons”, J.R. 31 (2007)to find that source.As this is a website not specially reserved for legal scholars I have not set out footnotes and indicated the sources IN DETAIL SO AS TO HARASS THE LAY READER UNNECCESSARILY as usually done in a research paper.Everyone gets his material for writing ARTICLES FROM OTHER SOURCES AS NO ONE IS BORN WITH SUCH KNOWLEDGE.

      • 0
        0

        Lakhsaman Keerthisinghe A.L.so you read books? Great for pachoris

        • 0
          0

          Capricon
          U are displaying the level of ur breeding by ur choice of the words used in ur valueless comments.If u can not comprehend what is said in an article get some help from a knowledgeable person to get it explained to u.

  • 0
    0

    Legal concepts and theories apart, are we serious about independence of the judiciary and rule of law in Sri Lanka?

    Shouldn’t we start there?

  • 0
    0

    Mr Keerthisinghe, since you never had a practice to talk of, now is the chance. I am sure Cheap Justice Peris and Marasinghe will encourage you. You can count on Hettige also. Other judges will look helplessly and go home and blame Cheap Justice as they do now when they meet senior lawyers.

    • 0
      0

      Sita
      Hiding behind a pseudonym and defaming others is the halmatk of a coward.Pl. reveal ur identity and correct address so that u get the punishment u deserve for ur comments as u will have to pay substantial sums as compensation for damages caused to other’s reputation.U have no right to talk of justice with worthless comments of this nature.

      • 0
        0

        Do you really feel the environment created by MR and regime today is people^s friendly if they would voice them freely. The situation before us today is worst than in late 80ties. That is the reason why many to hide behind pseudo names, you know-all.

        • 0
          0

          Bob
          Know nest to nothing.
          What an excuse given by one coward to shield another?

  • 0
    0

    A good article however I cannot agree with the statement “Courts should take a broader view of the social policies engaged by such legislation and show some consideration for its usefulness and its larger benefits to the country.”

    The quote seems to suggest that the judiciary is better off giving effect to community goals or policy.

    This will lead to injustice. Judges should take into account individual rights and liberties and decide cases.

    I look forward to the idea of proportionality being a ground of judicial review.

  • 0
    0

    Also whoever who said proportionality is fading in the UK is a fool.
    They clearly have a limited understanding of EU law. The judges of the UK are bound to and have in the recent past decided many cases on proportionality. A simple examination of the recent case law will reveal this.

  • 0
    0

    where is the good old saying that justice must not only be done but must appear to be done.

  • 0
    0

    This is the the total opposite of their verdicts in many of the crime investigations held in the country today…

    Writing something totally different from the reality- as the verbatim clearly shows:

    “We all swear an oath to administer justice without fear or favour affection or ill-will. Judicial independence requires that judges should be true to that oath and if the rule of law is really to prevail, the individual citizen must be confident that the judges will apply the law to them without fear or favour affection or ill-will. Justice Marasinghe quite correctly vowed that Her Ladyship shall be true to that oath until the relinquishment of the office and stepping down from the august office which Her Ladyship has now begun to hold “

    How can the author come with this kind of articles, while seeing further the move of rule of law is TOTALLY ignored in this country to this date ?

    • 0
      0

      because he now plans to appear before Marasinghe and the Cheap Justice.

      • 0
        0

        Will any among them come forward to explain the nation why Duminda Silva was bailed out breaking the all hopes of victimised parties. I have listened to the words of widowed Premachandra – she only prayed the gods to give a fair verdict. All these buggers – judges make the hell for the general public in SL – none of the people will have any faith on lanken courts and those so called lanken educated Judges. If anyone among them would rise against all these biased verdicts – that would be just a wonder.
        Rulers become dictators for their own reasons, but law educated ones should react properly respecting and safegurding the security of the people for whom those professionals swore before being appointed. But none of the judges in SL seem to have backbones to react like for example German judges would do… Germany ^s model is equal to everyone – even former president was charged for his wrong doings, so would be the case the others in the topleadership. Our idiots should finally learn all these not being half hearted in every crime invesigations. If we have a functional rule of law only, we can go forward else, we will become not second to somalia soon.

  • 0
    0

    As a layman I have my grave doubts on the efficacy of the doctrine of proportionality. Even though it would appear that in matters of national or public interest some discretionary power would be justified in interpreting the law, the subjective nature of that act leaves room for questioning the reasoning espoused in the judgement.

    In Sri Lanka the people are fast losing confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary. In fact the quality of judgements is also of serious concern, particularly when it comes from the Supreme Court. The political corraling of the judiciary in Sri Lanka makes one think that the Rule of Law is under threat. This doctrine is therefore manna from heaven for a powerful politician when he has the judiciary under his thumb or when the judicial officer is compromised in some manner.

    It would be most interesting if Keerthisinghe can quote a few judgements made in Sri Lanka where the doctrine of proportionality was applied so that we can gauge their reasonableness in practice, perhaps some judgements of Justice Rohini Marasinghe.

    Keerthisinghe’s diligent espousal of the doctrine of proportionality and the gushing admiration for her Ladyship may also signal some forthcoming judicial intervention?

  • 0
    0

    Yes Judges should maintain good relations with Ministers Mervyn De Silva, Duminda, Pahmaperuma, Dissanayake they will tell what the Judges should do

    • 0
      0

      Mr.Gamini Perera
      Having cordial relations with the executive does not mean that judges should give judgements in favour of the executive when the executive had abused its discretionary powers in dealing with citizens.It means that a judge should not become antagonistic towards the executive when such judge’s spouse is charged in Court with some offense and BY BIASED JUDGEMENTS obstruct legislation which is brought in greater public interest being passed by the legislature.Another example is the acquisition of RESIDENTIAL houses to expand a roadway for public purpose.This is an instance when the majority public interest OVERTAKES INDIVIDUAL SELF INTEREST FOR THE GREATER GOOD OF THE PUBLIC.THAT IS THE BASIS OF PROPORTIONALITY.I HOPE U UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE NOW.

      • 0
        0

        Lakhsman Keerthisinghe, when we run short of toilet paper I know what to choose – your articles

        • 0
          0

          Capricon
          Have u heard the story about casting pearls before swine.They too desecrate the pearls like u

  • 0
    0

    Never mind ‘proportionality’ and what it means.
    Why does the Chief Justice refuse to divulge the postmortem report on the body of a man who died in prison?

    • 0
      0

      For the greater good of the public no doubt!

  • 0
    0

    I hope after praising them in this humble way Mr.Keerithsinghe will have the decency not to appear before judges like Marasinghe and Mohan Pieris. If he does the other lawyers should object that a court cryer is appearing before the judge he is praising. Those who know the career of justice marasinghe know her as a judge. There is no need for more praise.There is a judgement of two distinguished judges Justice ARC Perera and Justice Sangakkara( 1997) which says that lawyers who write good things about a judge should not appear before the same judge.

    • 0
      0

      mrharryhatton

      SIMPLY BECAUSE A LAWYER EXPLAINS THE LEGAL POSITION REGARDING THE DOCTRINE OF PROPORTIONALITY OR ANY OTHER LEGAL CONCEPT CONTAINED IN A JUDGE’S SPEECH FOR THE GREATER UNDERSTANDING OF THE PUBLIC,SUCH JUDGE WILL NOT BE INCLINED TO FAVOUR SUCH LAWYER.READ CAREFULLY THE WORDS OF JUSTICE MARASINGHE WHICH I REPRODUCE BELOW:
      “We all swear an oath to administer justice without fear or favour affection or ill-will. Judicial independence requires that judges should be true to that oath and if the rule of law is really to prevail, the individual citizen must be confident that the judges will apply the law to them without fear or favour affection or ill-will. Justice Marasinghe quite correctly vowed that Her Ladyship shall be true to that oath until the relinquishment of the office and stepping down from the august office which Her Ladyship has now begun to hold.
      I HOPE THAT WILL CLEAR UR APPREHENSION.

  • 0
    0

    What’s with the worshipful “HIS LORDSHIP” and “HER LADYSHIP” nonsense ??

    Why not call a judge a “judge” as they do in North America.

    • 0
      0

      American Mama
      Aney Mame,
      If U are a Buddhist then U know that Lord Buddha preached to respect the persons who ought to be respected and it was stated that it is a ‘angala karanaya’ in the Mangala Sutta.( PUJACHA PUJANIYANAN)As we have INHERITED THE BRITISH TRADITION IN OUR COURT SYSTEM WE ADDRESS THE JUDGES OF THE SUPERIOR COURTS IN THOSE RESPECTFUL TERMS AS DONE IN ENGLAND.Although in this age some people behave worse than animals we have been brought up in a tradition to respect our elders and give respect to those who deserve respect either by their learning or exalted positions held by them.

      • 0
        0

        England is “Old Fogey.” Americans call Europe “Old Europe.” Europe is broke and in a financial bind.

        Why not Sri Lanka develop it’s own Legal constitution or whatever you call it and get rid of this old Roman-Dutch idiocy that you guys keep worshipping.

        As far as I know most Lawyers in Sri Lanka go through law college and have never ever stepped into a university. So what’s up with so much worshipful respect ??

        Here even the president is addressed by his first name on TV. and is made the butt of jokes by comedians all the time.

  • 0
    0

    Is this Mr Keerthisinghe i used to learn chemistry, he was my fathers friend and a senior chemist lived in Cooray Mawatha. I would love to communicate with you

    • 0
      0

      Mr.Siribaddana, did he teach you how to make a shandy of piss and shit and did he taste it?

    • 0
      0

      SISIRA
      NICE TO HEAR FROM U.ALTHOUGH U STUDIED CHEMISTRY UNDER ME U ARE NOW A SENIOR SURGEON.I AM HAPPY THAT I COULD HELP U TO ACHIEVE THAT GOAL AS U ARE NOW RENDERING A GREAT SERVICE TO HUMANITY I AM PROUD TO HAVE HAD U AS MY STUDENT HAVING BEING INTRODUCED BY UR DEAR DEPARTED FATHER,WHO WAS A GREAT FRIEND OF MINE.CALL ME ON 077-9288149 AND I WILL LET U KNOW MY ADDRESS.
      REGDS
      LAKSHMAN

  • 0
    0

    Shame on you. If it was a university student, that student is expelled but as of a judge…it goes on. There is a saying I am sure the respectable judge is familiar with….come to equity with clean hands.

  • 1
    0

    Ask Rohoni Marasinghe J. to explain how she was OVERLOOKED,
    beside TWO others Appeal Court Judges, one was President of the Appea; Court???

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 200 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically disabled after 7 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.