060-NLR-NLR-V-64-THE-QUEEN-v.-D.-J.-F.-D.-LIYANAGE-and-others.pdf
The Queen v. Liyanage and others
SIS
o#
1962 Present: T. S. Fernando, J.,L. B. deSilva, J.f and Sri Skanda Rajah, J.THE QUEEN v. D. J. F. D. LIYANAGE and others
Trial at Bar No. 1 of 1962Trial-at-Bar under as. 4, 8 and 9 of Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Act, No. 1 of1962—Direction and nomination of Judges effected in the English languageonly—-Communication thereof to Court in English—Validity of 'procedure—Powers of Minister to direct a Trial at Bar and to nominate Judges—Constitu-tionality—Inadmissibility of evidence of mala fides in the Minister—Effect ofwords “ shall not be called in question in any Court ”—Constitution of Ceylon— 'Separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers—“ Judicial power ”—Criminal Procedure Code, ss. 216, 440A—Official Language Act, No.. 33 of1956, 8. 2—Language of the Courts Act, No. 3_j>f_1961—Cey[o^(Constitution)Order in Council, 1946, ss. 29 (1), 52, S8—Courts Ordinance, ss. 6, 21, 51—Applicability of principle that justice should not only be done, but should, manifestly be seen to be done.
Section 2 of the Official Language Act, No. 33 of 1956, reads as follows :—
*
“ The Sinhala language shall be the one official language of Ceylon :
Provided that where the Minister considers it impracticable to commencethe use of only the Sinhala language for any official purpose immediatelyon the coming into force of this Act, the language or languages hitherto usedfor that purpose may be continued to be so used until the necessary changeis effected as early as possible before the expiry of the thirty-first day ofDecember, 1960, and, if such change cannot be effected by administrativeorder, regulations may be made under this Act to effect such change. ”
Sections 8 and 9 of the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Act, No. 1 of 1962,read as follows :—
“ 8. Any direction is'shed by the Minister of Justice under section 440Aof the Criminal Procedure Code shall be final and conclusive, and shall notbe called in question in any Court, whether by way of writ or otherwise. *
, 1
9. Where the Minister of Justice issues a direction under section 440Aof-the Criminal Procedure Code that the trial of any offence shall be heldbefore the Supreme Court at Bar by three Judges without a jury, the threeJudges shall be nominated the Minister of Justice, and the Chief Justiceif so nominated or, if he iB not so. nominated, the most' senior of the threeJudges so nominated, shall be the president of the Court.
The Court consisting of the three Judges so nominated shall, for all purposes,be duly constituted, and accordingly the constitution of that Court, and its'jurisdiction to try that offence, shall not be called in question in any Court,whether by way of writ or otherwise. ”
On the 23rd June 1962 the Minister of Justice, purporting to act under section440A of the Criminal Procedure Code as amended by section 4 of the CriminalLaw (Special Provisions) Act, No. 1 of 1962, directed that certain persons be.tried before the Supreme Court at Bar by three Judges without a jury. There– -after, on the same day, purporting to act unde/ section 9 of the Criminal Law
14, 16, & 16—LXtV:-
_ 2—B. 6478—1,883(12/62)'
314
The Queen v. Liyanage and others
(Special Provisions) Act, ho filed in the Court a document nominating threeJudges to'preside over the trial. The direction and nomination,.and the coni-munication thereof to tho Court, were effected only in the English languageand not in the Sinhala language.
Held, (i) that, even assuming that on or aftor 1st January lyoi official, actsof officials .could have been or can be performed only in the Sinhala language,'as English is still admittedly the language of the Court,'the communication bythe.Minister to the Court by documents made out in English of ,the direction,•and nomination of Judges by him was a sufficient compliance with the’existinglaw and was not rendered null and void by the provisions of section 2 of theOfficial Language Act, read with the Language of the Courts Act,-No.'3 of 1961.
'.4
• (ii) that section 8 of the Criminal Law. (Special Provisions) Act empowering. the. Minister of Justice to issue direction that a Trial at Bar be held by threeJudgos without a jury, under section 440A of the Criminal Procedure Code,is intra vires the Legislature.■i
that tho provision in section S of the Criminal Law (Special Provisions)Act that any direction by tho Minister “ shall not bo called in question inyanyCourt ” excludes tho admissibility of evidence to establish the existence of malafides in the Minister.
. that section 0 of the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Act is ultra viresthe Constitution because (a) thepowor of nomination conferred on the Ministeris an interference with the exercise by the Judges of the Supreme Court of thestrict judicial power of the State vested in them by virtue .of their appointmentin terms of section 52 of the Ceylon (Constitution) Order in Council, 1946, or
. is in derogation thereof, and (6) the power of nomination is. one which hashitherto been invariably exercised by the Judicature as being part of the exerciseof the judicial power of the State, and cannot boreposed in anyone outside theJudicature.'•j –
that the Minister’s power of nominating tho Judges, even had it beenintra vires the Constitution, would have offended against the cardinal!principlethat justice should Dot only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedlybe seen to be done.
Order made in respect of certain preliminary objections taken to aTrial at Bar which, was sought to be held under the provisions of theCriminal Law (Special Provisions) Act, No. 1 of 1962.
– G. G. Ponnambalam, Q.C., with S. J. Kadirgcimar, E. A. G. de Silvaand K. N. Gkoksy, for the 1st and 2nd Defendants, raised certain preli-minary objections.—The Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Act, No. 1of 1962, and more especially sections 8 and 9 was an attempt on the partof the legislature to assume an authority where it had none and to fortifyitself by seeking to prevent the constitutionality of the’ Act being raisedin any court. The first question therefore is whether the legislature• can by an Act of Parliament immunise itself by withdrawing the powersof the courts to question the validity of an Act. .’.1"* .r
. 1 * ■' ' . * '
■ The (Ceylon) legislature is not supreme and not,-merely Section 29
but every section in the . Constitution is an entrenched clause J because
an amendment can only be passed by a two third majority,.
The. Queen v. Liyanage and otiiers..
A country may be politically sovereign without ^^legislature beingsupreme j; Parliament cannot pass an Act that is ultya^rhfe^and at thesame time say that.the Courts cannot declare it in valixi^flooiQ.Up:
“ Constitutional Law of Great Britain and the Commonw€afth3fe^&edition at pp. 44, 47 ; Harris v. The Minister of the •Interior (1952)
2 S: Ai L. R. 428 at 464; Minister of Interior v. Harris (1952) 4 S. A. L. R.769 at 779. '' r. .’
V ; ..;
Sections 8 and 9 of Act No. 1 of 1962 shut out the fundamentalauthority of the courts to examine the validity of ah Act. Legislationis.bad unless it is for “the peace, order and good government .of, the• Island (a requirement of Section 29 (i) of the 1946 Constitution Orderin Council). The Courts have a right to examine whether a piece oflegislation is for “ the peace, order and good government of the Island ”—Aziz y. Thondaman 61 N. L. R». 217 at 222 and 223 ; Ashbury v. Ellis1893 A. C. 339 (P. C.) (New Zealand Case) at 341 & 344; P. S. Bus Co. v.
C. T. B. 61 N. L. R. 491.
r ■'
» j♦
The Courts cannot avoid considering the question of jurisdiction inspite' of Sections 8 and 9. See The Queen v. Theja Gunawardene 56N. L. R. 193 at 206 ; Upper Argbid Assessment Comm. v. QartsidesBrewery 1945 All E. R. Vol. I 338; In re “ Amaldo da Brescia ” 23N. L.. R. 391 at 395 ; Besphande v. Emperor 1945 A. I. R. (Nag.) 23;Liversidge v. Anderson 1931 A. C. 321.i '
^.Sections 8 and 9 say that the direction and nomination shall not be* .questioned in “ any ’’ court. “ Any court ” cannot include the Supreme
Court. – <.
; j
* The Minister’s direction under section 440A of the Criminal Procedure.Code! was bad in law for the following reasons :—. *
i-•'‘
(i)! In the context of the constitutional position of the time, theremoval of so fundamental a right as trial by jury in 1915 by section440A of the Criminal 'Procedure Code was repugnant to the laws ofEngland, and consequently ultra vires of the Constitution as it stoodin 1915. In regard to the history of Sections 216 and 440A of the CriminalProcedure Code dealing with trial at bar and especially the constitutional.background to the introduction of Section 440A in 1915, see :—OrdinanceNo. 18 of 1915 (introducing 440A) ; Royal Charter of 1810 (esp. clause 10)introducing trial by Jury ; Royal Instructions 24th November 1910;Letters Patent 24th November 1910; Ceylon Constitutional Order, inCouncil 1920 (esp. sections 44,45, 47); Royal Instructions 11th September,1920; Letters Patent 11th September 1920 ; Parliamentary Government
in the British Colonies (1894) 2nd Edition.
J .; .‘ (ii) »The substitution of “ the Minister of Justice,” for “ the Governorby'warrant under his hand ” in section 440A by proclamation underthe pouter given by section 88 of the Constitution Order in Council .of1946 to modify,, add to,' or adapt ” any written law was ultra viresthe Constitution. The Minister of Justice aa'a politician and a member
316
The Queen v. Liyanagc and others
of the Cabinet cannot be equated to the impersonal. Head of State.
In the context of the constitutional background the substitution wasinvalid and the Minister of Justice was not the proper authority to issuethe direction under section 440A.
It is incongruous that the sanction of the Governor-General' isnecessary .for prosecution under section 104 of the Criminal ProcedureCode while.the hallowed right of trial by jury may be suspended by amere fiat of the Minister under section 440A.
Other consequences (anomalies and contradictions) would flow fromthe attempt to substitute the Minister of Justice for the “ Governorby warrant under his hand ”. Was it proper for the Attorney-Generalto disclose information to the Minister of Justice and had the Ministersthe right'to call for information from the Attorney-General who is a non-political person ? Under our Constitution the Minister of Justice hasno right and is not expected to interfere with the performance of judicialfunctions or with the institution or supervision of prosecutions. Norhas he any power to issue any direction to any court. His functions arepurely ministerial and administrative. The direction therefore was anunconstitutional and invalid order.
; Then there was the form of the Direction ; whom does the Ministerdirect—the Supreme Court or the Chief Justice ? What happens if theSupreme Court or the Chief Justice ignores it as it transgresses the spiritor the constitution ? Conflict between the executive and the judiciary*vould inevitably arise if the Chief Justice orders a trial at bar by Juryunder section 216 and the Minister under section 440A makes a directionfor trial at bar without a jury. A direction as in this case would be indirect conflict with the express provisions of section- 5 of the CriminalProcedure Code. See :—Criminal Procedure Code Sections 5, 104, 216,385, 440A ; Ceylon Constitution Order in Council, 1946 (sections 88, 45,
• 46,45 (2); Ceylon Independence Order in Council, 1948; Soulbury Report,paras. 394-396, 401-405 ; Proclamation in Government Gazette No. 9,773of 24th September, 1947; Proclamation in Government Gazette No. 9,828of 5th February, 1948 ; In Re Agnes Nona 53 N. L. R. 106.
The direction of the Minister is also invalid because it is a directionof a member of the Executive in a cause in which he had great personalinterest leading to bad faith—mala fides. The jurisdiction of the courtflows from the direction of the Minister (of 23rd June 1962). The Courtcan go into the question of bad faith. On the unquestioned facts ascontained in the information laid, there was alleged an attempt to over-throw the Government of which the Minister was a member. Thisalone is sufficient to establish his personal interest, and bias should bepresumed. No person interested in the cause should be a'judge. That“ justice must not only be done but should seem to be done ” may be ahackneyed phrase but has not lost favour.—Deaphande v. Emperor1945 A. I. R. (Nag.) 23.
The Queen v. IAyanage and others
317
Counsel then went on to deal with what he called “ the second limb ofthe argument ”, viz., the jurisdiction and constitution of the court: the# nomination of the judges by the Minister. There is no legislation hereor anywhere which contains in one small Act principles and devices sofundamentally opposed and abhorrent to the way justice is normallyadministered in criminal cases. The whole scheme of the Act reveals apurpose different from what appears on the face of the Act. The legisla-ture cannot do indirectly by a subterfuge what it cannot do directly.Some of the objectionable features of the Act are : the creation of newoffences making them retroactive ; the creation of a new court speciallyconstituted on the nomination of Judges by a Minister ; the provisionthat no court can question the direction of the Minister or the constitutionand jurisdiction of the court; the laying down of procedure by the courtof trial itself; confining the authority and jurisdiction of the court toone special case ; providing for the expiry of the provisions of the Act asregards this case ; suspending the operation of certain sections of theCriminal Procedure Code dealing with the investigation of cognizableoffences; amending the Evidence Ordinance and fundamental rulesthereunder, admitting hearsay and admitting confessions obtained ata time when the law made them inadmissible ; reposing in the Inspector-General of Police and his associates an uncontrolled power for preventivedetention on mere suspicion and not on reasonable grounds ; detentionunder conditions which were not published ; right to suspend both theprovisions of and rules under the Prisons Ordinance ; startling innovationof trial in absentia.
Certain dates are significant: On the 22nd two new judges were appointedto the Supreme Court and on the 23rd came the direction, the informationand the nomination of the judges of this court.
The nomination of the Judges by the Minister was a violation of theConstitution and ultra vires the Constitution. It was an open attempt’to interfere with one of the entrenched institutions in the Constitution,viz., an independent judiciary.
One reason why this cannot be done is that under our Constitutionthere is a separation of powers. There is clearly a three-fold division ofgovernmental powers between the 3 main organs. The separate headings
The Legislature ”, “ The Executive ” and “ The Judicature ” (Parts IH,
and VI of the Constitution) must be given due weight. See Inglis v.Robertson 1898 A. C. 616 at 624. We do not have a complete separationof powers but there is a definite separation and greater than in EnglandSee Jennings & Tambiah : Vol. 7 British Commonwealth p. 76. • Althoughthe Judicature is dealt with in Part VT it is not complete in itself, for thef ramers of the Constitution appear to have adopted institutions as theyfound them at that time. The Constitution does not say what theSupreme Court is. Eor this purpose we must look to statute law lik ethe Courts Ordinance to complete the picture.
B.. C478 (12/62)
318
The Queen v. Liyanage and others
It is quite clear that the Constitution tried to establish the independenceof the judiciary by seeing to it that the executive did not have a handin the appointment, removal and salaries of judges. That was the purposetoo of the Judicial Services Commission : to prevent executive interference.See Senadhira v. Bribery Commissioner 63 N. L. R. 313 at 317 ; TheBracegirdle case 39 N. L. R. 193 at 210.
The relevant sections of the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Actmust be considered in the light of the complete independence of thejudiciary well established in the past. Traditional and historical usagesand practices must bo taken into consideration in the interpretation ofstatutes.—Naim v. University of Si. Andrews 1909. A. C. 147.
When the executive could not and dared not make a frontal attack onthe independence of the judiciary, could it by legislation, seek a colourabledevice to establish a court parallel to the Supreme Court and therebynullify the independence of the judiciary ? This is a case of the executiveseeking through an act of the legislature to do indirectly what it cannotto directly. In such cases the Courts will examine the true characterof the legislation (the pith and substance) to decide whether it is intravires the Constitution. On examination the Act in question revealsa concealed purpose and endeavours to achieve by a legislation passed byan ordinary majority something prohibited by the well establishedprinciple of the independence of the judiciary which the Constitutionitself safeguards. See :—Kodakan Pillai v. Mudanayake 54 N. L. R.433 at 438; A. G. Ontario v. Reciprocal Insurers 1924 A. C. 328 at337 ; Union Colliery Co. v. Attorney-General of British Columbia 1899 A. C.580; Attorney-General of Ontario v. Attorney-General of Dominion ofCanada 1896 A. C. 348 ; Canadian Federation of Agriculture v. Attorney-General of Quebec 1951 A. C. 179 at 195.
The nomination of the Judges by the Minister also destroys the onenessand identity of the Supreme Court. Section 52 of the Constitution refersto “ the Supreme Court ” but does not say what it is. It seems tohave adopted the institution as it was at the time. But the CourtsOrdinance 1889 and the earlier Charters (1801, 1810, 1811, 1833) makeabsolutely clear the “ oneness ” of the Supreme Court. [In reply toCourt, Counsel said it was not necessary for him at this stage to claimthat certain sections of the Courts Ordinance were part of the Consti-tution although that was his view. But he wished to state that section52 of the Constitution Order in Council, section 6 and section 3 andsection 41 of the Courts Ordinance, and clause 5 of the Charter of 1833were all connected up and established beyond doubt the oneness andidentity of the Supreme Court.] Section 52 of the Constitution mustbe examined against the background of the past. There cannot betwo parallel Supreme Courts or a subdivision of the Supreme Court.Although section 9 of the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Act speaksof the “ Supreme Court ”, what it brings into existence is not the SupremeCourt. Nomination of the Judges by a Minister is totally foreign to
The Queen v. Isiyanage and others
319
the institution of the Supreme Court. In addition it is repugnant tothe concept of the independence of the judiciary and something utterlyunknown to and vltra vires the Constitution. [Counsel cited variousprovisions of the Courts Ordinance, the Court of Criminal AppealOrdinance, and the Parliamentary Elections Order in Council to showthat constituting a bench to hear a case has always been a duty of theChief Justice himself or a matter for the internal arrangement of the Court.]
Nowhere can an “ alien ” hand interpose itself and attempt to nominatejudges. The moment a foreign hand comes in and picks 3 out of thepanel of Supreme Court Judges the resulting court loses the characterof the Supreme Court, and what it forms is a tribunal of 3 SupremeCourt judges—but not the Supreme Court. The reference in section 9of Act 1 of 1962 to “ the Court consisting of three judges ” is an appre-ciation of this fact, and the declaration that it is “ duly constituted ”arises from an inner consciousness of its inherent weakness. SeeEngineer's Case 1913 A. C. 107.
The position of the Minister of Justice as recommended in Articles394, 395, 396 of the Soulbury Report is important. There could be nouestion of the Minister of Justice having any power of interference asregards the institution of criminal or civil proceedings. The Manual ofProcedure cannot be interpreted to give the Minister such a power. AnyPrime Minister allocating functions must allocate them within the boundsof the Constitution.
[In reply to Court, Counsel said that it was particularly section 9 ofthe Act of 1962, with its power of nomination by the Minister, wkicoffended the Constitution. It offended Part IV of the Constitution,especially sections 52 and 53. Inherent and implicit in these provisionsis the effort of the Constitution to preserve the independence of thejudiciary and prevent the taint of influence by the executive. Inanswer to Court whether it was not the judicial function that was pre-served, Counsel said that that could only be done by isolating thejudiciary from any possible taint of executive influence. He referred toa lecture by Lord Justice Denning on “Independence and Impartialityof Judges ” in 1954 S. A. L. J. 5 Vol. 71 Part IV at p. 351.]
The nomination of Judges is an interference with the judicial process.The judicial process in this case starts with the direction.
[Replying to a question by Court whether Act 1 of 1962 would havebeen valid if passed by the British Parliament, Counsel replied that theBritish Parliament was supreme while Ceylon, Australia, New Zealand,etc., had written Constitutions. He submitted that legislation in Ceylon,to bo ultra vires the Constitution, must not only observe section 29 (2)but also section 29 (1) and be for “ peace, order and good 3 ovemment ”.]
<?. O. Ponnambalam, Q.O., with S. J. Kadirgamar, E. A. G. de Silva,
R.A. Kannangara and K. N. Choksy, for the 3rd Defendant.
320
The Queen u. Liycmage and others
' E. G. Wikramanayake, Q.C., with A. C. M. Ameer, R. A. Kannangaraand G. T. Samerawickreme, for the 4th Defendant.—It is clear law thatthe court has the power to decide whether it has jurisdiction to hearthe case, and if there is anything that has infringed the Constitution,to declare it ultra vires. See Queen v. Theja Gunawardene 56 N. L. R.193.
. Section 29 of the Constitution Order in Council of 1946 providesthat Parliament may “ make laws for the peace, order, and good govern-ment of the Island”. There is an overwhelming presumption thatParliament legislates for peace, order and good government but itis not an irrebuttable presumption. When in a given case thatpresumption is rebutted it is the duty of the courts to hold that thepiece of legislation in question is vltra vires the Constitution. Section9 of Act 1 of 1962 is not for “good government”. Section 29 (2)provides for further limitations and the opening words of the section“no such law” are significant. Section 29 (3) makes void “such”laws as have already passed the test under section 29 (1) but fall underthe prohibited class in section 29 (2).
Even assuming that the direction given by the Minister of Justice wasgood, the selection of Judges by the Minister to hear the case was ultravires the Constitution. According to the Constitution no one outsidecan interfere with matters relating to the Supreme Court. Even withregard to the minor judiciary no one outside can interfere with anyappointment, dismissal or transfer of a judicial officer. See Part IV ofthe 1946 Constitution Order in Council.
We have had Constitutions and changes of Constitutions but theconstitution (i.e. the functions) of the. Supreme Court has alwaysremained the same. There has always been only one Supreme Courtand this oneness of the Supreme Court needs to be stressed. See section3 and section 6 of the Courts Ordinance. Judges sit as representativesof the Supreme Court whether singly or collectively and not as SupremeCourt judges. The distribution of work among the judges and thequestion of who should hear a particular case is entirely an internal matter.When there is any outside interference in the selection of a judge or judgesthe integrity of the Supreme Court is broken. The picking of threejudges by the Minister to hear this particular case had a disintegratingeffect and the resulting court is not the Supreme Court but onlya panel of three judges of the Supreme Court. Anything that breaksup the Supreme Court is an interference with the independence of thejudiciary.
As soon as the information is laid the Supreme Court takes cognizancefo it. In the present case the direction came before the information—a direction to try a non-existing case. The judicial process may be saidto begin with the direction and certainly begins with the information.The nomination by the Minister that came after the information wasan interference with the judicial process.
The Queen v. Liyanage and others
321
The legislature may create new courts but they must not come intoconflict with the courts already functioning and recognised by theConstitution. See Senadhira v. Bribery Commissioner 63 N. L. R. 313 ;Tillekawardene v. Obeyesekera 33 N. ' L. R. 193 ; Huddart Parker v.Moorehead 8 Com. L. R. 330 at 357.
The direction and the nomination do not exist in law. Since thedirection and the nomination were acts of the Minister, they were officialacts. All official acts have to be in the official language : Sinhala.Neither the direction nor the nomination was made in Sinhala. Bysection 2 of the Official Language Act No. 33 of 1956 “ The Sinhalalanguage shall be the one official language of Ceylon. ** The provisoto section 2 permitted the use of other languages already in use whereit was impracticable to commence the use of Sinhala immediately, butthe proviso itself fixed 31st December 1960 as the date beyond whichonly Sinhala was to be used for all official purposes. The word officialhas not been defined in the Act. The ordinary Oxford English Dictionarymeaning of an official act as an act authorized by the Government wouldapply.
Neither the Tamil Language (Special Provisions) Act No. 28 of 1958,nor the Language of the Courts Act No. 3 of 1961 has in any way alteredthe position that since 31st December 1960 Sinhala is the one officiallanguage for all official purposes.
It is not contended that Sinhala is the language of the legislatureor the language of the Courts. English may be the language of the courtsbut direction by a Minister is an official and an administrative act.If official acts are to be in the official language the direction in the presentcase does not exist. Since the language of the courts is English, andthe direction has to be in Sinhala, a translation in English may be annexedbut that is only a matter of convenience.
The nomination too is bad for the same reason. But the nominationwould be bad even if it was in Sinhala.
G. Ponnambalam, Q.C., with Stanley de Zoysa, S. J. KadirgamarA. C. M. Ameer, E. A. G. de Silva, Neville de Jacolyn Seneviratne andManivasagan Underwood, for the 5th Defendant.
G. G. Ponnambalam, Q.C., with S. J. Kadirgamar, E. A. G. de Silva,
R.A. Kannangara, K. N. Ohoksy and R. Ilayperuma, for the 6thDefendant.
G. G. Ponnambalam, Q.C., with S. J. Kadirgamar, E. A. G. de Silva,G. F. Sethukavalar and R. R. Nalliah, for the 7th Defendant.
i
G. G. Ponnambalam, Q.C., with S. J. Kadirgamar, E. A. G. de Silvaand R. R. Nalliah, for the 8th. Defendant.
G. G. Ponnambalam, Q.C., with S. J.. Kadirgamar, A. C. M. Ameer,
A. Q. de Silva. R. R. Nalliah and E. Cooray, for the 9th Defendant.
S22
The Queen v. Isiyanage and others
G. Q. Pomiambalam, Q.G., with S. J. Kadirgamar, E. A. G. de Silva,Lucien Weeramantry and K. Viknarajah, for the 10th Defendant.
S.J. Kadirgamar, with E. A. G. de Silva, L. Kadirgamar and R. L.Jayasuriya, for the 11th Defendant.
S.J. Kadirgamar with A. C. M. Ameer, E. A. G. de Silva and
K.Viknarajah, for the 12th Defendant.
G. G. Ponnambalam, Q.G., with S. J. Kadirgamar, A. C. M. Ameer,
A. G. de Silva, G. F. Sethukavalar and R. R. Nalliah, for the 13thDefendant.
*
G. G. Ponnambalam, Q.C., with S. J. Kadirgamar, A. C. M. Ameer,
A. G. de Silva, R. R. Nalliah and E. Co'oray, for the 14th Defendant.
G. G. Ponnambalam, Q.C., with S. J. Kadirgamar, E. A. G. de Silvaand R. A. Kannangara, for the 15th Defendant.
♦
G. Wikramanayake, Q.C., with M. Tiruchelvam, Q.G., J. A. L.Cooray, G. T. Samerawickreme and R. A. Kannangara, for the 16thDefendant.
G. Ponnambalam, Q.C., with S. J. Kadirgamar, E. A. G. de Silvaand Sunil Rodrigo, for the 17th Defendant.
E. G. Wikramanayake, Q.C., with J. V. C. Nathaniel and A. W. N.Sandrapragas, for the 18th Defendant.
W. Jayewardcne, Q.G. with R.A. Kannangara, L. C. Seneviratne and
P.N. Wikramanayake, for the 19th defendant.—In examining the CeylonConstitution it is helpful to ascertain the origin of judicial power in thiscountry.
In the earliest form of society judicial power came into existence beforethe exercise of legislative power. See Ancient Law—Mayne 133. In thegrowth of civilisation, there was first the institution of the Family whichdeveloped into the organisation of the Clan or Race. From here theregrew the organisation or institution known as the State or Nation. Ineach of these institutions it was the head of the respective institution thatexercised the judicial power—namely the power to decide disputes.Then there came the Greek and Roman civilisations—during which timethe power of judging was transferred by the Head of the State to a fewpersons who had specialised knowledge—the Senate—who acted as anindependent judicial body in deciding disputes between man and manand between man and State.
Next there was the Anglo-Saxon period in England—Henry II madethe first attempt to establish judicial power in an independent body bysetting up courts and itinerant justices. After the attempt by KingCharles to interfere with the judicial process failed the rights and libertiesof the subject were decided by a body completely independent of theexecutive.
The Queen v. Liyanage and others
323
• In Ceylon before 1796 there existed for a long period an independentjudiciary. See History of Ceylon published by the University of Ceylon1960 Edn. Vol. 1 at page 558; Sinhalese Social Organisation—Ralph Peiris147; Sketch of the Constitution—Doyly—-page 28; Jennings and Tamhiah—Ceylon Constitution page 101 re the Dutch Courts.
The terms of the capitulation on 5.11.1796—clauses 16, 23 andLegislative Enactments 1796 to 1873,referred to. The rights and libertiesof the subject already enjoyed were guaranteed. Also a systemof courts was to be set up. A further principle was recognisedby this capitulation, namely that laid down in Campbell v. Hall 98E. R. 105 (1047) that the fundamental rights of His Majesty’s subjectsare guaranteed to the people of Ceylon. The source of these fundamentalrights is the Magna Carta and one of those rights is that no man shallbe punished or dealt with except by due process of law. In accordancewith these guarantees the British set up an independent judiciary.
Effect of Sec. 9 of Act No. 1 of 1962 is to undermine all three pillarsof the temple of justice—the appointment, tenure and dismissal of aSupreme Court Judge governed by Sec. 52 of the Order-in-Council.For this reason, Sec. 9 is ultra vires and contrary to the Ceylon Constitu-tion. See Lord Atkin’s judgment in 1938 (2) A. E. R. 601—TorontoCorporation v. York {Township), A. G. for Ontario.
Appointment.
Judicial power can only arise by virtue of an appointment by theGovernor-General under Sec. 52 of the Constitution Order-in-Council.Any attempt to interfere with that appointment by a later Act by theExecutive Authority would undermine this pillar of the temple of justice.
Once a Judge of the Supreme Court is appointed, he is vested with thejudicial power of the Supreme Court, i.e. the power to hear and determineany case that comes up in the Supreme Court. The Judge has the discre-tion to decide as to whether he should in fact hear a particular case.The effect of Sec. 9 is to leave no such discretion in the Judge. TheMinister is now given the power to say “ Judges A. B. C. shall hear aparticular case ”. Then the other Judges are disqualified from hearingthe case.
The position is that a Judge appointed under Sec. 52 cannot hear thiscase even though he is vested with the judicial power of the SupremeCourt. He derives the power to hear this case by virtue of his nominationand is exercising a power which the Minister has invested in him underSec. 9 of Act No. 1 of 1962. In other words, the appointment by theGovernor General under Sec. 53 of the Order-in-Council becomes irrelevantwhen it comes to hearing of this case. Therefore the power of nominationin Sec. 9 of Act No. 1 of) 962 is inconsistent with Sec. 52 (1) of the Order-in-Council.
324
The Queen v. Liyanage and others
“Nominate” means in fact “appoint”. “Nominate” means toappoint by name. See : Short's Oxford Dictionary ; Letters Patent by whichJudges of the Supreme Court are appointed.
Once the Governor General appoints a Judge of the Supreme Courtunder Sec.' 52 there can be no other appointment or nomination. SeeAttorney General, Ontario v. Attorney General of Canada 1925 A. C. 555 ;133 Law Times 434; Waterside Federation of Australia v. Alexander25 Commn. L. Rep. at page 4GS. The former case is exactly in point.
The power of a Judge under Sec. 52 (1) is to hear cases generally ; thispower cannot then be limited to the hearing of a particular case as issought to be done under Sec. 9, because it precludes the other Judgesfrom hearing this case—this results then in a violation of Sec. 52 (1)which gives all the Judges of the Supremo Court the power to hear allcases that come up before the Supreme Court.
Tenure.
In Ceylon a Judge of the Supreme Court holds office till he is 62 yearsof age unless he retires earlier or is removed from office. A Judge 'canbe removed by an address of both Houses of Parliament. They do nothold office at pleasure of the Crown.
When the Minister makes his nomination he in effect says “Youwill hear this case ” i.e., once the trial terminates the Judges are functusofficio. This is an ad hoc appointment. See Alexander's Case 25Commn. Law Rep. 447.
Dismissal.
The right or power to appoint’ carries with it also the power to dismiss—the incident of the power to appoint is the power to remove. See :Interpretation Ordinance Sec. 14 (/) with Sec. 18 and Myers v. UnitedStates 272. U. S. {S. C. R.) 52.
The Minister can withdraw the nomination on any ground ; there isno restriction on his right to remove a Judge.
The vesting of the power of nomination in the Minister under Sec. 9is also in violation of the judicial power of the Supreme Court which isentrenched in Sec. 52 of the Constitution Order-in-Council. “ Judicialpower ” is the right vested in a Court to determine disputes. As to thedefinition of judicial power see dicta per Griffiths C.J. in UuddartParker Ltd. v. Moorehead S Comm. L. R. 330. Judicial power is createdunder Sec. 52. Its source is the Governor General who appoints Judgesto the Supreme Court and it is this appointment that vests judioialpower in the Judges. The definition of “ judicial power ” in the HuddartParker case was followed in Shell Company Case 1931 A. C. 144 andLabour Relations Board of Sasketchwan v. John East Ironworks 1949A. C. 134 (149) P. C.
The Queen,-v. lAyartage and others
325
The power of nomination is an incident in judicial power which isentrenched in Sec. 52 and this section is violated when the Ministeris given the power to nominate.
An ancillary power (like the power of nomination) is so inextricablybound up with the exercise of judicial power that it cannot be interferedwith. This is a matter for ■ those who exercise that power. See :
In re Wells 13 E. It. 92 ; The King v. Davison 90 Comm. L. It. 353. Thelatter case deals with the question of the exercise of judicial power andacts which are incidental to the exercise of judicial power.
Separation of Powers. The Ceylon Constitution is one in which thedoctrine of the separation of powers has been given effect to. The legis-lative, executive and judicial functions are placed in three departmentsand they cannot trespass on the powers or activities of each other—unless they are allowed to do so by legislation passed in the form andmanner required by the Constitution.
* I ' ,
lt The! doctrine of the separation of powers is part and parcel of theConstitution. This doctrine has been considered in America.—Kilbournv. Thompson 103 U. S. (S. C. R.) 377 ; Myers v. United States "272 U. S.(S. C. R.) 52 (116) which deals with the power of removal being implicit inthe power of appointment—at p. 161 (110). In this case, on the questionof the separation of powers all the Judges were in agreement. See(177) (199) (235) (291) (240). Springer v. The Government of the Philip-pine Islands 277 U. S. Reports 188; Organic Act of the Philippines of1916 Sec. 12 ; Sawyer v. Youngstown Steel Co. 343 U. S. R. 579. (1166 ;1168 ; 1172 ; 1179 ; 1181).
This doctrine has also been dealt with in Australia. See :— 20 Comm.
R. 54' (87, 88) ; Waterside Federation of Australia v. Alexander 25Comm. Law Rep; Victoria Steel Rolling Co. v. Digman — 46 Comm. L. R.73 (130) ; Queen v. Kirby—The Boilermaker's Case 1957 Vol. 2 A.E.R.45 (51 E. 53).
In Ceylon this doctrine has been recognised from as far as 1833 sofar as this Court is concerned. See Charter 1833. This Charterwas introduced as a result of Reports submitted by Messrs Golebrookeand Cameron. See Colebroolce Cameron Papers Vol. 1. by G. C.Mendis and Vol. 2 pages 125, 350 and Communication by the Secretaryof State to the Governor, accompanying the Charter of 1833.
.|Under the Eonoughmore Constitution there were attempts to join.
the legislature and the executive but judicial functions were kept distinctly. apart. Under the Soulbury Commission the doctrine of separation ofpowers is recommended—Soulbury Commission Reports — Sec. 395and 396 at pages 105 and 106.
The Ceylon Constitution Order-in-Council deals with separation of• Governmental functions in-the Constitution—Part II Governor-General,Part III Legislature, Part VI Judicature. See : Agnes Nona’s Case,50 N. L. R. 106 (112); Senadheera case, 63 N. L. R. 313 ; Queen VictoriaMemorial Hospital v. Thornton, 87 Comm. L. R. 144. .
326
The Queen v. Liyanage and others
The function of selecting Judges to hear a particular case is a functionthat has been hitherto performed by the Judges—this function has nowbeen delegated to the Chief Justice. Therefore this function belongsto that part of the Constitution dealing with the Judicature and thegiving of that power, namely, the power to exercise what is a judicialfunction to an administrative official is a violation of the Constitution.Further, when the Constitution came into being, historically, the functionof selecting Judges was vested in the Judges themselves or in the ChiefJustice. It is a judicial function and it cannot be conceived that theframers of the Constitution had in mind that a Minister should be vestedwith the right to select Judges. It is submitted that this is an attemptby the legislature to trench in or encroach into Part VI of the Consti-tution.
It is also a well known rule of interpretation that where a person isvested 'with a power, he is necessarily invested also with all those subsi-diary and ancillary powers which would enable him to carry out theprimary power—Craie's Statute Law 5th Edn. 239.
The judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court or the Judges of theSupreme Court. Then all those ancillary powers necessary for theperformance of the primary function—the judicial function—are judicialfunctions too. The question is what are those ancillary powers necessaryfor the purpose of exercising the primary power. My submission is thatthe power of appointment is ancillary to the exercise of the judicial powerand to vest it in the Minister would be a violation of the Constitution.See : Queen v. Davison 90 Comm. L. R. 353. The only way this couldbe done is to first alter the Constitution by a two-third majority andthereafter by passing necessary legislation—Cooper v. Commissioner ofIncome Tax 4 Comm. L. R. page 1304 at p. 1317.
The tests by which whether an ancillary function is a part of the judicialpower may be ascertained, are laid down in Queen v. Davison and maybe usefully applied to the present case. The historical test as laid downby Dean Roscoe Pound and the Holmes test as laid down by Holmes J.,referred to. The answer to either of these tests if applied to the presentcase would show that the power of nomination is essentially a functionof the court and cannot be reposed in the executive.
Section 9.
The nomination is for some of the Judges of the Supreme Court. One eJudges are nominated the rest of the Judges of the Supreme Court areunable to hear the case—they are incapacitated from hearing the case.
The authority for hearing the case is the nomination under Sec. 0.The appointment by the Governor-General under Sec. 52 (1) is not theurce of the power to hear the case—it is derived from t he nominationby the Minister.
The Queen v. IAyanage and others
327
[T. S. Fernando, J.—When a Judge of the Supreme Court is appointedby the Governor-General under Sec. 52 of the Constitution he receivesthe judicial power ; and if a law is enacted taking that judicial power
which is conferred by Sec. 52, then that is a violation of Sec. 52
Therefore if the Minister has been given a special power of appointment,it is a contravention of the general power of appointment under Sec. 52.]
That is the pith and substance of what X was trying to say.
On the question of separation of powers, in the American, Philippinesand Australian Constitutions there is a specific vesting of the legislative,executive and judicial powers in the legislature, executive and the judica-ture respectively. There is no vesting of judicial power in the SupremeCourt because the Supreme Court was already in existence at the time ofthe Constitution. The authorities are quite clear that once a Constitu-tion creates a separation of powers there need not be express words tosay that one branch or function of Government cannot trench in on theother. It can only be done by way of a proper amendment of theConstitution. See : Marbury v. Madison 1 Crunch Reports 137, 2 U. S.(jS. C. R.) 135 {Lawyers' Edition), Myers Case 272 U.S. R. {138-140) {237).
Once it is recognised that there is a separation, then it follows youcannot exercise the powers of another department. See : Senadhira’sCase, 63 N. L. R. 313; Macaulay v. King, 1920 A. C. 691; A. G. New SouthWales v. Trethowan, 44 Comm. L. R. 394.
In regard to the question of the bona fides and mala fides of the Ministerin issuing the nomination and direction—Firstly, sec. 9 does not prevent. this Court from going into this question— ‘ any court ’ does not refer to„this court but to another court; the essential condition of the exerciseof judicial power by a particular court is to determine whether it hasjurisdiction to entertain the litigation and this can only be taken awayby express words. If the effect of Sec. 9 is to bar this Court from goinginto the question of jurisdiction, then it is an interference with the judi-cial power of this court. See : Halsbury Vol. 9 {3rd Edn.) p. 350 Sec. 822;Chester Bateson, 1920 (2) K. B. 829 ; 122.L. T. 684; Theja Gunawardene’sCase, 56 N. L. R. 193.'*
i
! The question is whether the Minister in exercising his discretion inissuing the direction and nomination has acted bona fide or mala fide.See : 1947 (2) S. A. L. R. 984 ; Malyali v. The Commissioner of Police,1950 A. I. R. Bombay, 202 {203); Suriyawansa v. Commissioner of LocalGovernment, ‘48 N. L. R. 433 {436) ; de Smith—Judicial Review ofAdministrative Action, page 229 ; Desphande v. The Emperor, 1945A. I. R. Nagpur 8.
A. H. C. de Silva, Q.C., with S. AUes and K. C. Kamalanathan,for the 20th and 21st Defendants.—When there is a direction undersection 440A of the Criminal Procedure Code, a Trial at Bar can be heldbefore the Supreme Court without a Jury and from that moment therecan be no interference with the course, of that case except by law, providedthe law is good.
328
The Queen v. Liyanage and others
.There is no provision in the Courts Ordinance, the Criminal Procedure'Code or in the Constitution, in the absence of any special legislation, fora Minister to interfere with the selection of Judges. But for section 9of the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Act, No. 1 of 1962, the Minister’spower ends when the direction has been given. Section 9 places a bar,and it is not possible for any Judge of the Supreme Court to hear thatcase .till a nomination of Judges is made by the Minister.
The Governor-General appoints Judges of the Supreme Court undersection 52 (1) of the Ceylon Constitution Order-in-Council. When theyare thus appointed they are vested with judicial power which continuestill they retire or till they are removed by an address of both Housesof Parliament. The Judges can then hear every case which comes beforethe Supreme Court.
When a direction is given by the Minister, the authority given toJudges of the Supreme Court on appointment under section 52 (1) of thoCeylon Constitution Order-in-Council to hear any case which comesbefore the Supreme Court is taken away by section 9 of the Criminal Law(Special Provisions) Act. Then, till the Minister makes an appointmentof Judges to hear this case, none of the Judges of the Supreme Courthave the authority to hear it. In that sense, that nomination ;is anappointment of Judges to hear that case.
The nomination by the Minister does not constitute a Bench of theSupreme Court. In view of the fact that section 440A of the CriminalProcedure requires a Trial at Bar to take place before tho Supreme Court,this Court has no jurisdiction to hear a Trial at Bar. The nominationby the Minister under section 9 of the Criminal Law (Special Provisions)Act is ultra vires of the Constitution. If the power to nominate Judgesof the Supreme Court is to be given to a Minister, it must be done byamending the Constitution.
G. G. Ponnambalam, Q.C.: with S. J. Kadirgamar, E. A. G. de Silva,Izadeen Mohamed and H. D. Thambyah, for the 22nd Defendant.
G. G. Ponnavibalam, Q.C., with Stanley de Soyza, S. J. Kadirgamar,E. A. G. de Silva, Neville de Jacolyn,K. Viknarajah and R. Ilayperuma,for the 23rd Defendant.
G. G. Ponnambalam, Q.C., with S. J. Kadirgamar, E. A. G. de Silvaand Cecil de S. Wijeratne, for the 24th Defendant.
Douglas St. C. B. Jansze, Q.C., Attorney-General, with V. Tennalcoon,Deputy Solicitor-General, Ananda Pereira, L. B. T. Premaratne, T. A. deiS. Wijesundere, V.S.A. Pullenayegum and Noel Tittawella, Crown Counsel,for the Prosecution.—The words “ Peace ”, “ Order ” and “ good Govern-ment ” in Article 29 (1) of the Ceylon Constitution are not words‘oflimitation but are a compendious expression employed for conferring onthe Parliament of Ceylon the plenitude of legislative power. The Courtwill not inquire of any enactment, whether it does in fact promote peace,order or good government—vide Rielv. The Queen (1885) 10 Appeal Cases675 and Chenard and Company v. Joachim Arissol (1949) A. C. 127 atpage 132.
The Queen v. Liyanage and others
329
The direction issued by the Minister of Justice under Section 8 of theCriminal Law (Special Provisions) Act, No. 1 of 1962, and the nominationmade by the Minister of Justice under Section 9 of the same Act cannot;1if intra vires the Constitution, be called in question in any court as theexpress words of the sections prohibit such a challenge even on the groundsof mala fides—vide Smith v. East Elloe Rural District Council (1956)Appeal Cases 736.
There is no separation of powers in the Ceylon Constitution as foundin the Constitutions of the ’United States and of the Commonwealth ofAustralia. The Constitution of Ceylon has been modelled on the Constitu-tion of the United Kingdom in which there is no such separation ofpowers—vide paragraphs 40S to 410 of the Report of the Commissionon Constitutional Reforms, CMND 6G77 of September 1945.
Articles 52 to 56 of the Ceylon Constitution Order in Council whichare to be found in the Part headed ** The Judicature ” do not provide forthe establishment of a Judicature. Such provisions are to be found in theCourts Ordinance (Cap. 6). Articles 52 to 56 are primarily concernedwith ensuring the independence of the Judiciary. The independenceof the Judiciary does not require that Judges should have the freedomto decide which case they may hear but it requires that they should havethe freedom to decide any case which they may hear in any manner thatthey think the law requires and justice demands.
The term “ judicial power ” is not used anywhere in the Ceylon Consti-tution. The concept of judicial power derived from the Constitutionof the United States and of the Commonwealth of Australia (where suchterm is used) must therefore be used with caution. The concept ofjudicial power derived from these Constitutions has been employed inSenadhira v. The Bribery Commissioner, (1961) 63 N. L. R. 313, to providea definition of the term “ Judicial Officer ” in the Ceylon Constitution.A scrutiny of the cases on this topic would indicate that the term“ judicial power ” is used, broadly speaking, in three senses, viz :
the strict sense, i.e. “ the power which every sovereign must ofnecessity have to decide controversies between its subjects or betweenitself and its subjects, whether the rights relate to life, liberty or pro-perty — ” vide Huddart Parker & Co. Ply. Ltd. v. Moorehead (1909)8 C. L. R. 330 at 357 ;
the power of judicial review ;
in a wide sense to include any power conferred upon a Judge : videAttorney-General of Gambia v. N’Jie (1961) Appeal Cases, 617.
It is the first sense stated above that the term ‘ judicial power ’ bearswhen it is used in a constitutional context.
It is conceded, for the purposes of this case, that under the Constitutionof Ceylon judicial power in this sense must be exercised by Judges of theSupreme Court or Judicial Officers appointed by the Judicial Service
330
The Queen v. Liyanage and others
Commission. The power of nomination of Judges is clearly not an exer-cise of judicial power in this sense. A power incidental to the exerciseof a judicial power is not a judicial power and such power may be vestedin the Executive.
The power of nomination exercised by the Chief Justice under section51 of the Courts Ordinance (Cap. 6) is not an exercise of judicial power.The Chief Justice does not have more judicial power than any of theother Judges of the Supreme Court. He is only primiys inter pares.
In constitutions such as those of the United States and the Common-wealth of Australia, where there is a rigid separation of powers, theunion of judicial and non-judicial powers is not legitimate—vide Attorney-General of Australia v. The Queen (1957) Appeal Cases 288. (The Boiler-makers’ Case.) The so-called Holmes test and the method of historicalapproach have been employed by the courts of these .countries to justifythe union of judicial powers with non-judicial powers which are incidentalto the exercise of judicial powers—vide Prentis v. The Atlantic CoastlineCo. (190S) 211, U. S. 210 and Queen Victoria Memorial Hospital v.Thornton (1953) 87 C. L. R. 144 and The Queen v. Davidson (1954) 90C. L. R. 353 ; but in these cases it should be noted that the non-judicialnature of such incidental powers has always been recognised. Thesenon-judicial powers, although incidental to the exercise of judicial power,could therefore be validly vested in either the legislature or the executive.
Sinhala is an Official Language in the sense that its use is now authorised.The absence of any sanction in the Official Language Act, No. 33 of 1956,indicates that it was not intended to penalise the failure to use suchlanguage. The Act must be construed in such a manner as to avoidmischievous consequences. The expression “ before the expiry of the31st day of December, 1960 ” is a counsel of perfection, vide The Queen u.Justices of County of London and London County Council (1893) 2 Q. B.478. The operative words are “ until the necessary change is effected ”and no such change has so far been effected.
It is conceded by the defendants that English is the language of thecourts. That means that English is not only the language in which thecourt speaks but also the language in which it must be spoken to. Thedirection and the nomination are communications to the court and must,therefore, be in English.
A statute cannot be disregarded merely because it may appear to acourt to offend against the principles of natural justice. What the legis-lature in its wisdom decrees must be obeyed by all, even by Judges.
O.Q. Ponnambalam, Q.C., in reply.—The Attorney-General basedhis submissions mainly on the basis that there was no separation ofpowers in Ceylon. A true appreciation of what is meant by the separationof powers requires a knowledge of the background on which the entiredoctrine was based. From the time off Blackstone onwards what isemphasised as objectionable is not an overlapping of functions in the
The Queen v. Liyanage and others
331
periphery of the different spheres of government, but the concentrationof the powers of one body in another. A complete separation of powerseven if theoretically possible would bring government to an end. Whatis necessary is the prevention of tyranny. The doctrine has received itsmain application in the securing of the independence of the courts—-Constitutional Law of Great Britain and The Commonwealth 2nd edit,p. 15 by Hood Phillips *, Blackstone’s Commentaries by Samuel Warrenp. 241. The Attorney-General has misdirected himself into thinkingthat there was no separation of powers in countries mainly influencedby the British Constitution just because there was a certain amount ofoverlapping in otherwise clearly discernible spheres of governmentalfunctions. Even in America it was found impossible to adhere to a strictseparation of powers. A significant feature of the Constitutions ofAmerica, England and Ceylon was the practice of committees of thelegislature conducting inquiries—hearing evidence etc. This is to enablethem to perform the legislative function effectively and it was thereforean implied power of the legislature. See Mac Grain v. Daugherty atp. 306 of “Leading Constitutional Decisions” by Robert E. Cushman,10th edition ; Jennings: Law and the Constitution, p. 25, and Appendix,
p. 281.
There were the formal and material doctrines of the separation of powers.Under the former a function is considered to be judicial because it isexercised by a judge. The Attorney-General could not point to a singleauthority under a Constitution in a non-totalitarian country wherein amember of the executive was considered an appropriate or competentauthority to constitute a bench.
Nomination is not an administrative act, as the Attorney-Generalsubmitted, but a j udicial function. Definitions are difficult, but somethingthat ha3 become historically attached to judges as their properfunction becomes a judicial function. Nomination has become attachedto the function of judges collectively or otherwise and to remove it fromthe ambit of the purview of the judges would be to interfere with theindependence of the judges and a violation of the Constitution. Theconstitution of the Court is part and parcel of the judicial function.
The absence of the term “ vesting ” as regards legislative and judicialpower in Ceylon is understandable. Such a term would be necessaryonly when written Constitutions are promulgated for new politicalentities which did not exist previously. Prior to the Constitution, theLegislature and the Supreme Court had existed in Ceylon for severalyears. [Counsel examined the Constitutions of America, Australia,Canada and Ceylon as regards the vesting of the legislative, executiveand judicial powers.]
In regard to the Attorney-General's explanation of the judicial functionand judicial power, the judicial power of the State is an enormouscomposite of powers including all except executive and legislative power.The whole of the judicial power becomes indefinable but it is vested in
332
The Queen v. Liyanagc and others
find distributed'through, the judiciary. There is a distinction betweenjudicial.power of the State and judicial power of the judges, and betweenjudicial power in a unitary State and a federal State. In a qualitativeanalysis of judicial power, the judicial power of the courts is equal tothe judicial power of the judges plus something else. See Attorney-General of Gambia Case (1961) 2 All E. R. 504 ; 60 C. L. W. 71.
Judges exercise judicial power not only when they hear disputesbetween parties but also when exercising those powers properly appur-tenant to the functions of a judge. The constitution of a Court is partand parcel of the judicial function. In Ceylon, the judiciary and itsfunctions and powers and independence had been well established. Assuch those who framed the Constitution may have confined themselves,in dealing ■with the judiciary, to the three pillars of the temple of justicewhich establish irrevocably the total independence of the’ judiciary. TheConstitution of Ceylon like the India Independence Act was a skeletalAct. ’ See (1950) A. I. B. (Allahabad) 11 at p. 14. [In reply to theCourt, “there isn’t a more truncated, more incomplete and mutilatedConstitution than the Constitution of Ceylon .”]
There is no definition of judicial power which is exhaustive. Seehowever :—
K. v. Davison 90 Com. L. It. 368 and the commentary of Prof.
Sawyer on the case at p. 342 in 1954 Australian Law Journal,
Vol. 28.
The Rolla Case (1944) Vol. 69 Com. L. It. 185 at 199.
(1929) Vol. 42 Com. L. B. 515.
211 V. S. 229.
One test to decide whether an Act involves a judicial function isto find out what and where the particular function was depositedwhen the Constitution was passed. In the present case in which ofthe three limbs had the pow.er of nomination been vested in thejudiciary.
Queen Victoria Memorial Hospital v. Thornton (1953) 87 Com.
L. R. 144.
The definition of judicial power as “ the power vested in the courts toadminister justice according to law ” in 211 V. S. 122 is an admirabledefinition.
The power of making procedural rules is an extreme example ofincidental judicial power. According to Dean Pound, it is the functionof the Courts to regulate proceedings.
Whatever leads to the final determination of disputes is part of thejudicial process and the constitution of the court is part of the judicialprocess.
The Queen v. Idyanage and others
333
But for the Act No. 1 of 1962, the Minister’s attempt to nominate theJudges would have been a blatant case of contejnpt of court. See<c Democratic Government and Politics ” by Prof. J. A. Corry 2nd Edit,p. 245 (for an explanation of what a court is).
Counsel cited further cases on the nature of judicial power :—
The Shell Co. of Australia Ltd. v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation
1931 A. O. 275 at 297.
(a court has to be vested with the judicial power of the State. Thiscannot be said, for example, of the Board of Review on Income Taxwhich is therefore not a Court).
Attorney General for Australia v. Regina (The Boiler makers Case)
(1957)2 All E.R. at 56.
(Difference between judicial powers and powers ancillary to judicialpowers examined.)
Attorney General for Ontario v. Attorney General for Canada, 1925
A. C. 750, 1925 L. J. (P. C.) 132.
(To assign judges to a particular court means to appoint. Bynomination in the instant case, the Minister appoints judges to aparticular case and thereby tampers with the judicial power of theState vested in the Supreme Court.)
Rex v. Long. 1923 S. A. JL. R. 69.
(What constitutes a Court.)
King Emperor v. Sarma 1945 Vol. 1—All E. R. 203.
Though a particular act may in isolation look like an administrativepower, yet by association with the judicial power it becomes part ofjudicial power.
Queen Victoria Memorial Hospital v. Thornton S7 Com. L. R. 144 at 151.
It is not possible to isolate nomination in this case from the wholecomplex of judicial process. The nomination of the Judges by theMinister was an interference by the executive with what is fundamentallypart of judicial power.
E. G. Wikramanayalce, Q.C., in reply.—The Constitution provides forwhat might be called the “ autonomy ” of the Supreme Court. TheConstitution is a skeletal one which has taken the institutions as theyexisted at the time the Constitution was framed. The Supreme Court isdescribed not in the Constitution but in the Courts Ordinance. That iswhy certain sections of the Courts Ordinance can only be amended by atwo-thirds majority—the test being anything which affects the indepen-dence of the judiciary and the continuity of the Supreme Court dealtwith in Section 52 of the Constitution Order in Council. Section 6 of theCourts Ordinance is such a section.
2»*
It 647S (12/02)
334
The Queen v. Liyanage and others
The autonomy of the Supreme Court means that in relation to mattersnecessary for its functioning it must regulate itself. It is essential thatit should he kept free from any kind of outside interference amounting totrespass on the independence of the judiciary. When the autonomy ofthe Supreme Court which regulates itself is interfered with by a personwho has a personal interest in the matter or otherwise, that is an inter-ference with the independence of the judiciary. When a Minister,whether he is interested 01 not in a particular case, presumes to selectjudges whom he likes the autonomy ceases and the independence is put indoubt.
The history of this country has shown that the judges of the SupremeCourt have been and are independent. It is the common knowledgeof those who practise in the courts to hear a litigant say that he wishessuch and such a judge would hear a case or not hear it, depending on whathe rightly or wrongly guesses would be the judge’s reaction. For aMinister therefore, in a case like this, to pick and choose judges wouldtend to shake the confidence one should have in the judges of theSupreme Court. Justice must not only be done but must also seem to bedone.
•In interpreting a Constitution so truncated as ours one ought also tolook into the minds of the Soulbury commissioners who framed it. Theirreport shows that they sought to prevent, in every way, the interferencewith the independence of the judiciary.
As regards the direction having to be in Sinhala, the Official LanguageAct of 1956 leaves no doubt as to the legislature’s intention. Even theproviso in section 2 which makes certain concessions for the transitoryperiod uses the terms “ immediately ”, “ as early as possible ” and thefinal and most important phrase “ before the expiry of the thirty-firstday of December, 1960.” All this language and these phrases and thedefinite date cannot be dismissed as mere “ counsel of perfection ”. Allthe words in a statute must be given effect to. The legislature is deemednot to waste its words or to say anything in vain. See Quebec Railway,Light, Heat and Power Co. Ltd. v. Vandry A. I. R. 1920 B. C. 181 at 186 ;Baroda Kanta v. Shaik Maijuddi A. I. R. 1925 Cal. 1 at p. 3 ; The Queen v.The Bishop of Oxford (1879) 4 Q. B. D. 245 at 261 ; Regina v. The Justicesof the County of London and London County Council 69 L. T. 682(Distinguished).
It is no argument to say that if the courts hold that all official actsnot in Sinhala are void, it would lead to serious consequences and thatthe legislature must not be held to intend absurd results. There isnothing absurd about having officirl acts in Sinhala. If the precise wordsof a statute are plain and unambiguous, they must be construed in theordinary sense even though it leads to an absurdity. It is only whenthere is real doubt and two interpretations are possible without strainingthe language, that the more reasonable and sensible interpretation wouldbe preferred. We cannot disregard what appears to be the plain meaningof the English language even if in a particular case it does appear to
The Queen v. Liyanage and ethers
335
produce an inequitable result. “ Where the language. is explicit, its'consequences are for Parliament, and not for. the Courts, to consider.. Insuch' a case the suffering citizen must appeal for relief to the law giverand hot to the lawyer.”—Craies : “ Statute Law ” 5th ed., pp. 82, 85.
A Minister therefore must, by the Official Language Act, use Sinhalain all his communications after 31st December, 1960. The direction andthe nomination bad to be communicated in writing. They could not havebeen done orallj, and they had to be in the official language. He couldsend an English translation also, but that is a different matter. Thedirection and nomination therefore are invalid and have no existence inlaw.
H. W. Juyewardene, Q.C., in reply.—
Sec. 9 is an attempt by the legislature to make an inroad intothat part of the Constitution which provides for the independenceof the judiciary, namely Sec. 52 of the Order-in-Council. See Sections52 and 91 of Order-in-Council. Tbe independence of the Judges ispreserved in England by the Act of Settlement. The Russian Constitu-tion declares the independence of the Judges by Act 112 of the Constitu-,tion. See Vol. 3 Peasley: Constitutions of Nations p. 497. This legislationrenders sec. 52 meaningless and inoperative. Even legislation to amendthe Courts Ordinance by doing away with the Chief Justice, PuisneJudges, Commissioner of Assize and the Supreme Court cannot be passedas it would be repugnant to See. 52 of the Constitution. This can onlybe done by amending the Constitution. See: Marbury v. Madison2 U. S. (S. C. JR.) 138; Cooper v. Commissioner of Income Tax 4 Comm.Rep. 1324; Kodakan Pillai v. Mudanayake 54 N. L. R. at 438. Theappointment under Sec. 52 by the Governor-General secures the indepen-dence of the Judges. Nothing can come in between the appointmentof the judge and the time he delivers bis judgment. His sole source ofauthority is the appointment. The effect of See. 9 is that it creates anobstacle between the appointment and the final judgment: namely, inthe nomination. For without the nomination, the Judges in spite oftheir appointment under Sec. 52 cannot hear this case. Thus, thenomination under Sec. 9 is the appointment and is contrary to thoConstitution.
Nomination means in effect “ appointment ”. The nomination is theappointment of the Judges to hear this case. It has no special signi-ficance. The legislature is attempting to do indirectly what it cannotdo directly. This is so even in its attempt to constitute this court asthe Supreme Court. This is a mockery of the Constitution. Its effectis to derogate from the power of the Supreme Court. See : Young v.Bristol European Airways Co. Ltd. 1944 (2) A.E.R. page 293.
The question of nomination by the Chief Justice and the Minister.
When the Minister makes a nomination it is an administrative act.He is answerable to Parliament. If so, Judges can be discussed inParliament. The independence of the judiciary will cease to exist,
336
The Queen v. Liyanage and others
That is why tho Order-in-Council states that Judges will be appointedby the Governor-General, whose acts cannot be questioned in Parliament.See : Attorney General, Ontario v. Attorney General, Canada 1925 L. J.Privy Council p. 132 ; Schrier v. Bernstein & Labour Std—1902 33 Domi-nion L. R. page 305.
If the power of selecting Judges is left to the Chief Justice and theother Judges no one can question their acts. It is a matter within theirsole discretion. Further, when a Bench is constituted by the ChiefJustice, the other Judges are not deprived of their rights to hear a case.Each is entitled to hear a case though for convenience they make theirown arrangements. Assuming that this power of selecting Judges isadministrative, it is one which is vested in the Judges as a body.
The power to appoint carries with it the power to revoke ; this isimplicit in the power to appoint. The Attorney-General contends thatSec. 18 of the Interpretation Ordinance does not apply. The word“ order ” in the Section would apply to a nomination which is in effectan order by the Minister.
As to meaning of “court” see Halsbury Vol. 9 Simonds Edn. page342—Sec. S09.
As to what is meant by constituting a court—See Rex v. Long1923 A. D.
Separation of Pouters. The Attorney-General contends that there isno separation of powers in Ceylon. One does not find the separationof powers in any particular form in the Constitutions of variouscountries—the difference lies in the degree of the separation of powers.For instance, in the British Constitution the separation betweenthe executive and the legislature is not as marked as the separation ofthe judiciary on the one hand and the executive and the legislatureon the other. In America, the separation between the executive andthe legislature is more marked.
In every Constitution that has followed the British pattern the judi-ciary is always distinct from the executive and the legislature. See :Halsbury Vol. 7 page 2S7 (191) ; Law and Orders—Allen 2nd Edn page 1 ;Committee on Ministers' Powers (1930) Report (that judiciary is distinct).
Even in America where the separation of powers is more marked thanin any other constitution, in practice it is not applied with all its rigour—Hampton Co. Ltd. v. United States 276 U. S. Reports 394.
In Ceylon there is a clear separation of powers. Apart from autho-rities already cited, see Provincial Administration Report 1954—Cl. 4.For my purposes it is sufficient to argue that the judicial power is vestedin a separate and distinct department consisting of the Supreme Courtand the minor Judiciary.
For separation of powers in Canada, see Labour Relations Board ofSasketchwan v. John East Iron Works 1949 A. C. 134.
The Queen v. Liyanage and others
337
For separation of powers in Australia, see the Boilermakers Case 1957
A. E. R. 45 (P. C.).
In regard to the nature of the power of constituting a Bench : is it, an incident to the judicial power and therefore a part of the judicialpower or is it a purely administrative act ? Judicial power itself is thepower to determine the existence or non-existence of pre-existing legalrights. | It enforces pre-existing legal rights as between the parties tothe!dispute. This is the judicial power of a court. In the case of alabour, Tribunal or similar Tribunals, it determines the future termsof employment between master and servant. It creates new terms.It does hot seek to enforce pre-existing rights which is the judicial powerpure and simple—Euddart Parker <Ss Co. Ltd. v. Moorehead—8 Comm.
Rep. 330, per Griffiths C. J. Now in order to determine whether aparticular function is part of the judicial power or not one has to applycertain tests, as already submitted. One of the tests is that you mustlook at the ultimate end to be achieved ; then all those acts which areincidental to the achievement of the ultimate end belongs to that functionof Government, executive, legislative or judicial, as the case may be.If the ultimate end is .the judicial function, namely, the enforcementof pre-existing rights between the parties, then all those ancillary func-tions that lead up to the final judgment are part and parcel of the judicialfunction and come under the category of judicial power. On the otherhand, if the final decision would lead up to a purely administrativedecision, all those earlier acts belong to the category of executive power.This is, what may be termed as the “ Holmes test ” or doctrine. See :Rex v. Davison 90 Comm. L. R. 353 (366) (367); Beta Co. v. TheCommonwealth 69 Comm. L. R. 185 (199) (203); The King v. FederalCourt of Bankruptcy Exp. Lowerstein 59 Comm. L. R. 556 (581); Alex-ander’s Case 25 Comm. L. R. 434 (447) (468); Rex v. Kirby—BoilermakersCase 1957 (2) A. E. R. 45.
• t -•
It is submitted that the power to appoint a Judge or to nominate aJudge is a part of the judicial power enacted in Sec. 52 of the Order-in-Council and is a part of the judicial power since it must necessarily leadto a final decision in this case. It cannot be taken out of the judicialpower.
y
Further, every court based on the British system has got a residueof power by which it can do things which are necessary to enable thecourts to arrive at a final decision. See Hvjcum Chand Boyd v. Kamal-anand Singh 331. L. R. 927 (930).
Another test is the historical test—in the interpretation of constitutions,one looks at the date on which the Constitution came into force. Ifcertain acts were done as part and parcel of one particular organ of theState at that date, then you regard that type of function as belongingto that organ of State. It may be an administrative act, but if it wastraditionally done as part and parcel of the judicial function of the State,then it should be regarded as belonging to that organ of State. This
338
The Queen v. Liyanagc and others
approach, is also called the Dean Pound doctrine, being first enunciatedby Dean Roscoe Pound. For. the “ Holmes Test ” see judgment ofJustice Holmes in Prentis v.' Atlantic Coast Line Co. 211 U. S. It. 210.The “ Historical Test ” was applied in Labour Relations Board ofSasketchwan v. John East Iron Works 1949 A. C. 134 {149-153).
At the time the Constitution was promulgated in 1946 the function ofconstituting a Bench or nomination of Judges resided in the Judiciary—it was a judicial function. It could never have been intended that whenthe Queen gave this country its constitution she would have intendedthat • the legislature could take out this function of the court which isnecessary for the purpose of giving a final decision and rest it in theexecutive. See Rex v. Kirby—Boilermakers Case 1957 (2) A. E. R. 45{P.C.).*! ‘
I '
In regard to the responsibility of the Minister to Parliament, see Stand-ing Orders of the House of. Representatives, Order 31, 36 {7), 139. ErskineMay—Parliamentary Procedure 336 {337) {374) (375) (298). Questionsreflecting on the conduct or character of a person in official capacity. cannot be asked in Parliament but a question directed at the Minister withregard to the reason or circumstances for making a certain, appointmentor nomination does not refer to the character or conduct of the Ministerat all. See also : Halsbury Vol. 28 p. 300 Section 446 ; Order-in-CouncilSection 46 {!) ; Halsbury Vol. 7 p. 233 ; 359 ; Parliament —Jennings2nd Edn. p. 99 ; Government and Parliament—Sir Herbert Morrison p.256.
The other question is the application of the principle that justice mustnot only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to bedone. See : The King v. Edwin 48 N. L. R. 211; Sergeant v. Dale 1877 {2)
Q.B. 558 ; 37 L. T. 156.
However much one might be assured that Judges are independentthere is the fear lurking in the minds of the defendants that for somereason or other unknown to themselves and best knowiji to the Ministerand the Government, the Government has vested itself with the powerto select Judges. This fact alone would indicate that the independenceof the Supreme Court is sought to be attacked. The question is whetherthe defendants should so feel since for some reason or other the normalpractice of the constitution of the Court has not been followed.
t ,
I
Further, there are facts which indicate that the Minister himself partici-pated in the investigations. If so, a party would be Judge in his owncause by selecting Judges of his own choice. See Eckles v. Mersey [Dockand Harbour Board—71 L. T. 308 {310. 311) ; 1894 {2) Q. B. D. 667.Later cases apply the test of the reasonable man : whether in a litigationbetween A and B, A has the power of selecting the Judges while B hasno say in the matter. A reasonable man should say that there is biasas a result of such power being vested in A. This is the position in thiscase. This power vested in the Minister affects the entire independenceand integrity of the Court and is likely to create a, suspicion in the mindsof the public.
The Queen v. Liyanage and others
339
[T. S. Ferkakdo , J.—And more so in the minds of the defendants.]
See: Rex. v. Sussex Trustees—1924 (1) Q. B. JD. 256 (258) ;Rex. v. Carriboume Justices—1954 (2) A. E. R. 852 (855). If the effectof the legislation and the nomination is that justice does not appear to bedone then it-is regarded as a disqualification of the particular judgesbecause1 it prevents the judges from acting judicially, i.e., the SupremeCourt cannot act judicially and that is a negation of the only purposefor which the Supreme Court has been created. -If the legislation is suchthat it makes the Supreme Court unable to act, then the legislation tothat extent is bad. “ Judicial power ” in itself implies the right toexercise the power, unbiassed, i.e., without even a likelihood of bias
existing.
. j ■
As to “ substantive motion ” and Questions in Parliament, seeIntroduction to Bouse of Commons by Lord Campion ps. 110 (117) (170).May—Parliamentary Procedure p. 336 item 6, p. 201 disqualificationof membership; Ministerial responsibility. Questions in the House—Patrick Howarth p. 112, 119. Standing Orders of the Senate—re responsi-bility of Minister. Also : Terrel v. The Colonial Secretary 1953 (2) A. E. R.419 at 494.
A. H. C. de Silva, Q.C., in reply.—The Supreme Court is a separateentity. It would appear from section 52 of the Constitution Order inCouncil (i) that there is one Supreme Court, and (ii) that the provisionsof this section clearly indicate that there ought to be no interferenceby any outsider with the Supreme Court. These provisions seem toensure that the Supreme Court is an autonomous unit. Its functionshave to j be regulated by itself. The Supreme Court can function onlythrough its members. It is clear from the Courts Ordinance that, ifthere, is (one person who has a right to constitute a Bench of the SuprimeCourt or to nominate the Judges, it is the Chief Justice. Generally theBench is constituted by arrangement among the Judges themselves.
■ ' ■ :l
Nomination is a function of the Supreme Court. Where the Consti-tution intends that nomination should be the function of the Courtand that the Court should be an autonomous body, then, if nominationis given to an outsider, the Court is not constituted in the way the Consti-tution requires it to be constituted. The Court so constituted is notthe Supreme Court.
In regard to the question of bias, not only actual, bias but also thelikelihood of bias must be considered. See Cottle v. Cottle (1939)2 All E. R. 535 at 540 ; Rex v. Essex Justices (1927 ) 2 K. B. 475 ; Rode v.Bawa 1 N. I». R. 373 ; King v. Podisingho -16 N. L. R. 16 at 17 ; DingiriMahatmaya v. Mudiyanse 24 N. L. R. 377 ; King v. Caldera 11 C. L. W. 1;Kandaswamy v. Subramaniam 63 N. L. R. 574.
Cur. adv. mdt.
340
ORDER OF COURT—The Queen v. Liyanagc and others
ORDER
October 3, 1962.
On the twenty-third of June, 1962, the Minister of Justice, purportingto act under section 440A of the Criminal Procedure Code as amended bysection 4 of the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Act, No. 1 of 1962,by filing document “A”1 in the Registry of this Court, informed theCourt that he directs that the trial of twenty-four persons named thereinin respect of three specified offences all falling under Chapter VI of thePenal Code be held before the Supremo Court at Bar by three Judgeswithout a jury. Later that same day the Attorney-General exhibitedto the Court an Information—document “B” 2—informing the Courtthat the same twenty-four persons had committed the offences whichhad been specified therein and seeking the issue by the Court of lawfulprocess against the said persons. Thereafter, the Minister of Justice,again on the same day, purporting to act under section 9 of the CriminalLaw (Special Provisions) Act, No. 1 of 1962, filed in the Court document“ C ” 3 nominating us as the three Judges who shall preside over the trialof the persons referred to above to be held in pursuance of the directioncontained in document “ A ”.
*
* Acting upon the said direction and nomination we ordered summonsto issue on the twenty-four persons named in the afore-mentioneddocuments. On 30th July 1962 all the defendants being present andrepresented by counsel, we called upon the defendants to make theirpleas in answer to the charges contained in the Information. Counselthen raised certain preliminary objections to the trial proceeding beforeus, and it becomes necessary to set out hereunder the objections asformulated by counsel.
Mr. Ponnambalam who appeared for seventeen of the twenty-four*defendants framed his objections in the following form :—
“ This Court cannot take cognizance of the Information laid againstthe defendants, and it has no jurisdiction to try the case because itis not a validly or properly or lawfully constituted court; por is itcompetent to hold a Trial-at-Bar ”.
Mr. Wikramanayake who appeared for two of the other seven defen-dants objected on the ground that “ the nomination of judges is contraryto law and that the Court has no jurisdiction ”. He raised an additionalobjection which was split up by him as follows :—“ (a) The directionby the Minister is null and void ; and (6) The nomination of the Judgesby the Minister is null and void
>s See page 363 (infra).
3 See page 364 (infra).
1 See page 361 (infra).
ORDER OF COURT—The Queen v. Liyanage and others
341
Counsel for the remaining five defendants, except counsel for the19th defendant, did not raise any separate objections themselves butindicated that they would be supporting the objection raised byMr. Ponnambalam. Counsel for the 19th defendant informed Courtthat he would formulate his objections as follows :—
“ (a) The constitution of this court is contrary to law, and thereforethe court has no jurisdiction to try the case ;
In any event, the direction under section 440a of the CriminalProcedure Code and the nomination under section 9 of theCriminal Law (Special Provisions) Act are bad in law. ”
He further moved for summons on certain persons whose testimony,he stated, would be required to establish an allegation of mala fides onthe part of the Minister of Justice in issuing the direction and makingthe nomination of Judges proof of which was necessary to maintain hisobjections. We intimated to counsel for the 19th defendant that wewould consider the question of ordering summons to issue if he couldsatisfy us that* the evidence he contemplated obtaining was relevantand admissible.
Of these several objections, it seems to us that the additional objectionraised by Mr. Wikramanayake requires first consideration as the sustain-ing of that objection would have the result of terminating the presentproceedings. The substance of this additional objection that (a) thedirection and (6) the nomination made by the Minister are null andvoid was based on an interpretation he sought to place" on section 2of the Official Language Act, No. 33 of 1956, read with the Languageof the Courts Act, No. 3 of 1961. He contended that, as a result of theenactment of the Official Language Act, the Sinhala language has onand after the 1st day of January 1961 become the only official languageof Ceylon, and that the direction and nomination made by the Minister,being official acts of an official, were required to be done in the Sinhalalanguage. The Language of the Courts Act is designed to provide forthe use of the Sinhala language for recording the proceedings and forpleadings filed of record. No Order as contemplated in section 2, ofthat Act has hitherto been made in respect of any of the Courts andEnglish still continues as the language of the Courts. The direction andnomination of the Judges by the Minister,- not being acts constitutingproceedings in court nor forming pleadings filed of record, so Mr. Wikrama-nayake argued, could only have been validly done in the Sinhala language.While he conceded that English was still the language of the Courts and,therefore, that the communication to Court of the direction and thenomination could have been validly done in English, he contended thatcommunication can take place only after the performance of the actsand that there is an admission that the direction and nomination hadbeen effected only in the English language..
342ORDER OR COURT—The Queen v. Liyanage and others
Act No. 33 of 1956 is intituled “ An Act to prescribe the Sinhala 'language as the one official language of Ceylon and to enable certaintransitory provisions to be made. ” Section 2 of the Act enacts :— S .
“ The Sinhala language shall be the one official language of Ceylon :
Provided that "where the Minister considers it impracticable tocommence the use of only the Sinhala language for any official purposeimmediately on the coming into force of this Act, the language orlanguages hitherto used for that purpose may be continued to be soused until the necessary change is effected as early as possible beforethe expiry of the thirty-first day of December, 1960, and, if suchchange cannot be effected by administrative order, regulations maybe made under this Act to effect such change.”
This Act became law on 7th July 1956, and on that same day theappropriate Minister published a notification in the Gazette—(see Govern-ment Gazette Extraordinary, No. 10,949 of 7th July 1956)—in the followingterms:—
“ By virtue of the powers vested in me by the proviso to section 2of the Official Language Act No. 33 of 1956,1, Solomon West BidgewayDias Bandaranaike, Prime Minister, being the Minister in charge ofthe subject of the said Act, do hereby declare that where any languageor languages has or have hitherto been used for any official purpose,such language or languages may be continued to be so used until thenecessary change is effected in accordance with the provisions of theaforesaid section. ”
It is common ground that no regulations have been made as permittedby this Act, and Mr. Wikramanayake contended that, as the time limitpermitted by the proviso has now passed, the proviso itself has now-ceased to have any force. He argued that the transitory provisionsthemselves must cease on the expiry of the thirty-first day of December1960 and the use of the language prescribed by section 2 as the oneofficial language which meant the only official language must prevailover the use of any other language.
It may be mentioned here that Mr. Wikramanayake did not contendthat section 2 warranted the proposition that Sinhala became on andafter 1st January 1961 the only language in which the acts of all thefunctions of Government in this country could have been or can beperformed. He was content for the purpose of this case to argue thatit was the intention of the legislature to confine the operation of section 2to official acts in the sense of acts of officials as distinguished from actsof the legislature or acts done in court proceedings. The learnedAttorney-General himself submitted that the expression “ official ” insection 2 signified no more than authorised fcir official use, but he reliedon the absence of any provision in Act No. 33 of 1956 in respect of theconsequences of a failure to use the Sinhala language as the only official
ORDER OF COURT—The Queen v. Liycmage and other*
343
language as indicative of the intention of the legislature deliberatelyto refrain from providing any sanction in the event of such a failure.He submitted, further, that the legislature recognised that the changecould not be effected immediately and that a period of transition wasnecessary, but that no limit was placed by the Act on the duration ofthe period of transition. He was compelled to advance the argumentthat the effect of the proviso was to retain the period of transition untila change is in fact effected.
Relying upon certain observations contained in the judgment ofBowen L.J. in The Queen v. Justices of County of London and LondouCounty Council'1, he submitted that the expression “ Before the expiryof the thirty-first day of December 1960 ” is nothing more than a counselof perfection involving no consequences if the counsel is not heeded,and that the proviso in effect permitted the Minister to ensure that thelanguage or languages used up to the date of the enactment of Act No. 33of 1956 may be continued to be so used until the necessary change iseffected, although the intention and direction of the legislature wasthat it be effected as early as possible. He argued that the Act mustbe read, as all enactments are, subject to their not being made absurdby matters which never could have been within the calculation orconsideration of the legislature, and that if two possible interpretations. can be placed of which one is likely to bring about a mischievous resultwhile the other is conducive to peace, order and good government, thecourt must lean towards the latter interpretation.
It appears to us unnecessary to pronounce on the merits of theserespective contentions. Even if one were to assume the correctness ofMr. Wikramanayake’s contention that on and after 1st January 1961official acts of officials could have been or can be performed only in theSinhala language, as English is still admittedly the language of theCourt, the communication by the Minister to the Court by documentsmade out in English of the direction and nomination of Judges by himis, in our opinion, a sufficient compliance with the existing law. Weare therefore unable to sustain the additional objection and, accordingly,overrule it.
We can now turn our attention to the main objections which havebeen already specified. Although stated in varying forms by the severalcounsel for the defendants they raise in substance the unconstitutionalityof certain provisions of the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Act, andare designed to obtain from this Court a declaration that Sections 8 and 9of that Act which relate to the powers of the Minister of Justice to issuerespectively a direction that persons accused of certain offences be triedbefore the Supreme Court at Bar by three Judges without a jury andto nominate those three Judges are ultra vires the powers of the Legislatureas granted by the Ceylon (Constitution) Order in Council, 1946. It willbe convenient to deal with the alleged invalidity of the power to issue
1 L. R. (1893) 2 Q. B. at 491.
344ORDER OF COURT—The Queen v. Liyanage and others
a direction separately from the alleged invalidity of the power tonominate as the relevant considerations applicable appear to ns to differmaterially in the two cases.
First, as to the direction. Section 8 of the Criminal Law (SpecialProvisions) Act provides as follows :—
“ Any direction issued by the Minister of Justice under Section 440a. of the Criminal Procedure Code shall be final and conclusive, andshall not be called in question in any Court, whether by way of Writor otherwise. ”
This objection to the power of the Minister conferred on him by Section440a of the Criminal Procedure Code (as now amended by Section 4 ofAct No. 1 of 1962) to direct that these defendants be tried before theSupreme Court at Bar by three Judges, although outlined by counselfor all the defendants, was finally persisted in only by Mr. Ponnambalam.He pointed to the history of Section 440a, and explained that while theCode always contained provision—Section 216—whereby the ChiefJustice may in his discretion order that any trial before the SupremeCourt be a Trial at Bar by jury before three Judges, it was only afterthe religious riots of 1915 that the Legislature introduced provisionfor Trial at Bar without a jury, and that until the introduction of the 1946Constitution the power to direct such a Trial at Bar rested with theGovernor. The reason for the introduction into our law of the systemof trial without jury in cases which up to that time had been triableby jury was understandable as the chances of ensuring an unbiassedjury at times when public feeling is profoundly disturbed, whatever bethe cause, are considerably lessened. Mr. Ponnambalam was inclinedto question whether the Governor himself could have been grantedthat power, but it seems to us quite unnecessary to go into that questionhere. He certainly argued that the substitution of the Minister of 'Justice in place of the Governor in 1947 was not competent. Thisargument is, in our opinion, sufficiently repulsed by a reference toSection 88 of the Constitution Order in Council, 1946, itself, whichembodied the following transitory provisions relating to the modificationof existing laws :—
88.—“ (1) ” The Governor may by Proclamation at any time beforethe first meeting of the House of Representatives under this Ordermake such provision as appears to him necessary or expedient, inconsequence of the provisions of this Order, for modifying, adding to,
• or adapting the provisions of any written law which refer in whateverterms to the Governor, the State Council, the Board of Ministers, theOfficers of State, a Minister, an Executive Committee or a publicofficer, or otherwise for bringing the provisions of any "written lawinto accord with the provisions of this Order or for giving effect thereto.
-—(2) Every Proclamation under “ subsection (1) of this section shallhave the force of law and may be amended, added to or revoked byfurther Proclamation within the period specified in that subsection.”
ORDER OF COURT—The Queen v. Liyanage and others
345
Acting under Section 88 the Governor by Proclamation of 18th Septem-ber 1947 published in Government Gazette Extraordinary No. 9773 ofSeptember 24, 1947 directed the substitution for the word “ Governor ”in Section 440a of the words " Minister of Justice ” . It would be whollyunprofitable to attempt to assess, as Mr. Ponnambalam invited us to do,whether the Minister of Justice could have been so substituted for theGovernor because the paramount law, the Constitution itself, empoweredthe Governor to modify, add or adapt the provisions of any law “ asappears to him necessary or expedient. ” In view of the consistent inter-pretation language such as this has received in recent times in Courtsof the highest authority, it is now too late in the day to argue that,when the Legislature confers power on an individual by employingexpressions such as “ as appear to (the designated individual) necessary ”or “ as (the designated individual) considers sufficient ”, that is not enoughwarrant to constitute such designated individual the sole judge of whatis necessary or sufficient. See, for instance, the Privy Council decision inJRoss-Clunis v. Papadopoullos l. Nor do we think that by itself the factthat we have assembled to hear this case in pursuance of the directionmade by the Minister has the effect of constituting us a special Court orTribunal and not the Supreme Court. We need only refer to the admit-tedly sole previous instance after the introduction of the 1946 Constitutionof a Trial at Bar held before the Supreme Court by three Judges withouta jury, viz. The Queen v. Theja Gnnawardene a, where the Court statedthat “ the circumstance that the Minister purported to direct that anInformation shall be tried before the Supreme Court at Bar by threejudges without a jury does not, in our opinion, have the effect that aBench of three judges which assembles to hear the Information ceasesto be the Supreme Court and becomes a different tribunal created bythe Minister. ”
Another argument for invalidating Section 8 (an argument whichextended in respect of Section 9 as well) advanced by Mr. Ponnambalamwas based on the contention that the Legislature of this country notbeing sovereign it was competent to a Court to examine legislation todecide whether it was actually for the peace, order, and good governmentof the country, and, if it was not, to pronounce it void. Section 29 (1)of the Order in Council provides that “ subject to the provisions of thisOrder, Parliament shall have the power to make laws for the peace,order, and good government of the Island. ” Such a power has beenheld “ to authorise the utmost discretion of enactment for the attain-ment of the objects pointed to ”, and a Court will not inquire whetherany particular enactment of this character does in fact promote thepeace, order or good government of the Colony—see Chenard and Co. v.Joachim Arissol3. Mr. Ponnambalam sought to read Section 29 (1) asa limiting clause whereas it appears to us clearly as an empoweringclause. Cases decided in Ceylon or other countries of the BritishCommonwealth at a time when the Colonial Laws Validity Act applied
1 L. R. (1958) A. C. at 559.. * (1954) 56 N. L. R. 193 at 205.
8 L. R. (1949) A. C. at 132.
346
ORDER OF COURT—The Queen v. Liyanage and others
would be without application today.. To agree with the. submissionmade by learned counsel would be to negative the Sovereignty of Parlia-ment which in this country is now limited only in the manner set outin the other sub-sections of Section 29. To extend the scope of judicialreview beyond that would appear to us to place in the Courts a newpower unrecognized by the Constitution at the expense of a power vestedin Parliament by the Constitution. We find ourselves unable to upholdany of the arguments raised by Mr. Ponnambalam in order to impugnSection 8 of Act No. 1 of 1962.
What we have stated above do not, however, dispose of all the objec-tions centering round the direction that a Trial at Bar be held by threeJudges without a jury. Counsel for the 19th defendant has raised theobjection that, even assuming that the power conferred on the Ministerto issue a direction is intra vires the powers of the Legislature under theConstitution or is not in conflict with them (since it was a power thatexisted even before the Order in Council of 1946 was made by His Majestyin Council), malafides of the Minister in making the particular directionin this case vitiates it.
We had intimated to learned counsel that evidence to establish theexistence of malafides in the Minister of J ustice would have been permittedto be led only if he could have satisfied us that such evidence was relevantand admissible. The learned Attorney-General has, in respect of thisquestion, brought to our notice a decision in an English c/ise, undoubtedlyof the highest authority, which appears to us to be an effective bar to■ our sustaining this particular objection outlined on behalf of the 19thdefendant. No attempt was made on behalf of the defendants todistinguish this authority in any way and it affords a complete answerto the point raised. We refer to the case of Smith v. East Elloe RuralDistrict Council,1 where the House of Lords was called upon to considerthe interpretation to be placed on paragraph 16 of Part IV of Schedule Iof the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, whichwas in the following terms :—
“ Subject to the provisions of the last foregoing paragraph,a compulsory purchase order or a certificate under Part III of thisSchedule shall not, either before or after it shall be confirmed, madeor given, be questioned in any legal proceedings whatsoever …. ”
The House of Lords held, by a majority, that the jurisdiction of the .Court was ousted by reason of the plain prohibition in paragraph 16.Viscount Simonds, who was one of the judges comprising the majority,—at p. 750—expressed himself thus :— **
** My Lords, I think that anyone bred in the tradition of the lawis likely to regard with little sympathy legislative provisions. forousting the jurisdiction of the Court, whether in order that the subjectmay be deprived altogether of remedy or in order that his grievance
1 Jr. B. (195G) A. Q. 736.
ORDER OF COURT—The Queen v. Liyanage and others
347
may be remitted to some other tribunal. But it is our plain dutyto give the words of an Act their proper meaning and, for my part,
I find it quite impossible to qualify the words of the paragraphin the manner suggested …. What is abundantly dear is thatwords are used which are wide enough to cover any kind of challengewhich any aggrieved person may think fit to make. I cannot thinkof any wider words. Any addition would be mere tautology. But,it is said, let those general words be given their full scope and effect,yet they are not applicable to an order made in bad faith. But,My Lords, no one can suppose that an order bears upon its face theevidence of bad faith. It cannot be predicated of any order that ithas been made in bad faith until it has been tested in legal proceedings,and it is just that test that paragraph 16 bars. ”
On the same point, Lord Radcliffe, another of the judges who comprisedthe majority, stated—at p. 769 :—
“ At one time the argument was shaped into the form of sayingthat an order made in bad faith was in law a nullity and that, conse-quently, all references to compulsory purchase orders in paragraphs15 and 16 must be treated as references to such orders only as hadbeen made in good faith. But this argument is in reality a playon the meaning of the word nullity. An order, even if not madein good faith, is still an act capable of legal consequences. It bearsno brand of invalidity upon its forehead. Unless the necessaryproceedings are taken at law to establish the cause of invalidity andto get it quashed or otherwise upset, it will remain as effective forits ostensible purpose as the most impeccable of orders. And thatbrings us back to the question that determines this case : Has Parlia-ment allowed the necessary proceedings to be taken ? ”
We hold that all the objections taken in respect of the direction issued bythe Minister fail, and that Section 8 of Act Np. 1 of 1962 is intra viresthe Legislature.
Next, as to the nomination. Much of the argument before us wascentred on an attack on Section 9 of Act No. 1 of 1962 as being ultra viresthe Legislature’s power to make law by a simple majority. It is a novelprovision of law raising in this case an interesting but difficult questionof law.
Section 9 may conveniently be reproduced here :—
9.“ Where the Minister of Justice issues a direction under Section
440a of the Criminal Procedure Code that the trial of any offenceshall be held before the Supreme Court at Bar by three Judgeswithout a jury, the three Judges shall be nominated by the Ministerof Justice, and the Chief Justice if so nominated or, if he is not sonominated, the most senior of the three judges so nominated, shallbe the president of the Court.
348
ORDER OF COURT—The Queen v. Liyanage and others
The Court consisting of the three Judges so nominated shall, forall purposes, be duly constituted, and accordingly the constitution ofthat Court, and its jurisdiction to try. that offence, shall not becalled in question in any Court, whether by way of writ orotherwise. ”
The decision in. Smith v. East Elloe Rural District Council (supra) wouldbecome applicable even in regard to the attempt to impugn the nomina-tion under Section 9 only if this section is itself intra vires the Legislature.It has not been disputed by the Crown that this Court has, notwith-standing the wording of Section 9, jurisdiction to consider whether the..section is ultra vires. In order to found this attack all counsel jwhoaddressed us on behalf of the defendants contended that the Constitution
. I r
of Ceylon recognised a separation of powers of Government. We werereferred to the Constitutions of many countries, notably those ofj theUnited States of America, Australia, Canada, South Africa and India.On the other hand, the Attorney-General contended that no separationof powers exists under our Constitution, and that, if a separation, ofpowers exists dehors the written Constitution, it is a separation after theBritish method because we had been a ccustomed to that kind of separationthroughout the British occupation of this country.
In view of the fact that the Ceylon (Constitution) Order in Council of1916 itself recites that His Majesty’s Government have reached theconclusion that a Constitution on the general lines proposed by theSoulbury Commission (which also conforms in broad outline, save asregards the Second Chamber, with the Constitutional scheme put forwardby the Ceylon Ministers themselves) will provide a workable basis forconstitutional progress in Ceylon, we permitted counsel on both sides tomake reference to the text of parts of the report of the Soulbury Com-mission itself, a course which Their Lordships of the Judicial Committeeapproved in somewhat similar circumstances in Kodakan Pillai v.Mudannayake x. Counsel for the defendants referred us to paragraphs395 and 396 of that Report (Ceylon—Report of the Commission onConstitutional Reform, Cmd. 6677, September 1945) wherein . theCommissioners state :—I
. | j *
“ In making these recommendations we have fully consideredthe objections usually raised by those trained in the English traditionto the establishment of a Ministry of Justice, on the ground that aMinistry so designated is apt to blur—at least in the public mind—theline of demarcation prescribed under English practice between' theJudiciary and the Executive. We realise that Ceylon is accustomed tothe British system and that any departure from British principleswould be likely to meet with widespread opposition. ”
“ We would therefore make it amply clear that in recommend-ing the establishment of a Ministry of Justice we intend no more thanto secure that a Minister shall be responsible for the administrative side
1 (1953) 54 N. L. R. at 438.
ORDER OE COURT—The Queen v. Liyanage and others
349
of legal business, for obtaining from the Legislature financial provisionfor the administration of justice, and for answering in the Legislatureon matters arising out of it. There can, of course, be no question ofthe Minister of Justice having any power of interference in or controlover the performance of any judicial or quasi-judicial function, or. theinstitution or supervision of prosecutions”
The learned Attorney-General, on the other hand, referred us to
the Epilogue to the Report—paragraphs 408 to 410—wherein the
Commissioners state that—
t
“ The Constitution we recommend for Ceylon reproduces in largemeasure the form of the British Constitution, its usages and conven-tions, and may on that account invite the criticism so often and solegitimately levelled against attempts to frame a government for an
Eastern people on the pattern of Western democracyIt is
easier to propound new constitutional devices and fresh constructivesolutions than to foresee the difficulties and disadvantages which theymay develop. At all events, in re comm ending for Ceylon a Con-stitution on the British pattern, we are recbmmending a method ofGovernment we know something about, a method which is the resultof very long experience,, which has been tested by trial and error andwhich works, and, on the whole, works well.
Be that as it may, the majority—the politically conscious majorityof the people of Ceylon—favour a Constitution on British lines. Sucha Constitution is their own desire, and is not being imposed on them….
i But we think that Ceylon is well qualified for a Constitution framedon the British model, and we regard our proposals as a further stage in:the evolution of the system under which Ceylon was governed prior to1931—an evolution to some extent interrupted by the experiment ofthe Donoughmore Constitution of that year
We think that it should be well within the capacity of a futureGovernment of Ceylon to operate a form of Constitution which doesnot represent a novel and strange creation, but is the natural evolutionof a type of government with which the Ceylonese had for some timebeen familiar. ”
While we have referred to the Report of the Soulbury Commission, thequestion raised as to whether a separation of the three powers or functionsof Government is embodied in our Constitution must ultimately beanswered by an examination of the provisions of the Order in Council itself.The learned Attorney-General pointed out that under our Constitutionthe Cabinet of Ministers who are all members of the Legislature (i.e. ofthe Senate or the House of Representatives) are all executive officersand direct the executive functions of Government. The Chief Justiceand at least one other Judge of the Supreme Court are members of theJudicial Service Commission, a body performing executive functions. Itmust, however, not be overlooked that these are functions assigned to
350ORDER OF COURT—The Queen v. Liyanage and others
them under the paramount law, the Constitution itself. It appears to usunnecessary to go into this question at any length except to say -that ifby a separation of powers or functions of Government is meant a mutuallyexclusive separation of such powers or functions as obtains in theAmerican Constitution or even in the Constitution of the Commonwealthof Australia, which was itself based on the American Constitution, thereis no such mutually exclusive separation of governmental functions inour Constitution. Nor on the other hand do we have a sovereign Par-liament in the sense in which that expression is used in reference to theParliament of the United Kingdom. That a division of the three mainfunctions of Government is recognised in our Constitution was indeedconceded by the learned Attorney-General himself. For the purposesof the present case it is sufficient to say that he did not contest thatjudicial power in the sense of the judicial power of the State is vestedin the Judicature, i.e. the established civil courts of this country.
There is no dispute that the three of us, as constituting, for the pur–poses of this Trial at Bar, the Supreme Court are called upon to exercisethe strict judicial power of the State, and, in fact, we have, all three of us,received at one time or another, but in each case before the SupremeCourt was so called upon to exercise judicial power, appointment by the
Governor-General acting under Section 52 (1) of the 1946 Order in Council.
i . 3
i * i
It was strongly urged on behalf of the defence that the power of riomi-hation reposed by the impugned section 9 in the Minister is, in pith andsubstance, a power of appointment of Judges of the Supreme Courtin contravention of the said section 52 (1), and that the three of us consti-tuted neither the Supreme Court nor a bench of Judges of the SupremeCourt but merely a tribunal appointed by the Minister from the panelof Supreme Court Judges.
Whether or not the power of nomination granted to the Minister isintra vires the Constitution, there is, in our opinion, no doubt that thisCourt is assembled as the Supreme Court holding a Trial at Bar in termsof Section 440a of the Criminal Procedure Code and not as a separatecourt or tribunal. We have so assembled by virtue of a nominationmade by the Minister, and if that nomination be ultra vires the Constitu-tion we are agreed that this Court is not a duly constituted panel ofSupreme Court Judges to hold a Trial at Bar as representing theSupreme Court.
In support of the argument that this nomination is an appointment,the defence, apart from leaning on a dictionary meaning of the word—“ appoint (a person) by name to some office or duty ”—relied on thedecision of the Privy Council in Attorney-General for Ontario v. Attorney-General for Canada1. That case related to a conflict between the powersof the Governor-General of Canada to appoint Judges vested in himunder Section 96 of the Canadian Constitution and a certain provision1 (1925) 94 L. J. (P. G.) 132—L. R. (1925) A. C. 750.
ORDER OF COURT—The Queen v. Liyanage and others
351
in the Judicature Act of Ontario of 1924 passed by the Legislature of the•Province of Ontario which had been empowered by Section 92 of theDominion Constitution to make laws for the administration of justicein;the Province, including the constitution, maintenance and organisationof the Provincial Courts.
By the Judicature Act of 1924, the Legislature of Ontario establishedin lieu of the then existing Supreme Court a Supreme Court of Ontarioconsisting of 19 Judges to be appointed by the Governor-General asprovided in the Constitution. This Court was divided into two Divisions—the Appellate Division and the High Court Division. The rights of theexisting Judges were safeguarded, but the Act empowered the Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario to assign some of the Supreme Court Judges to theAppellate Division and some to the High Court Division. He wasalso authorised to designate the Presidents of the two Divisions and theywere to be called the Chief Justice of Ontario and the Chief Justice ofthe High Court Division respectively.
The powers conferred on the Lieutenant-Governor by this JudicatureAct were challenged as being ultra vires the Canadian Constitution.Upholding the challenge, Viscount Cave, L. C., stated in the JudicialCommittee :—
“ What is the effect of these provisions ? It can hardly be doubtedthat the result of these was to authorise the Lieutenant-Governorof the Province to assign—that is to say, to appoint certain Judges ofthe High Court to be judges of the Appellate Division of the SupremeCourt, and also to designate—that is to say, to appoint certainJudges to hold the offices of Chief Justice of Ontario and Chief Justiceof the High Court Division. If that is the real effect of the Statute,i as it appears to be, there can be no doubt that the effect of the Statute,if valid, would be to transfer the right to appoint the two Chief Justicesand Judges of Appeal from the Governor-General of Canada to theLieutenant-Governor of Ontario in Council; and if so, it mustfollow that the Statute is to that extent inconsistent with section 96of the Act of 1S67 and beyond the power of the Legislature of Ontario. ”
It is evident that in spite of the use of the words “ assign ” and“designate ” the effect of the 1924 Act was to restrict the powers ofappointment given to the Governor-General by the Constitution to anappointment of the Judges to the Supreme Court generally withoutallowing him the right to appoint them to the two Divisions of that Court.Clearly the Act purported to give the Lieutenant-Governor the right toappoint Judges to particular offices as such, though his field of selectionwas limited.
In the case before us the nomination of the Judges by the Ministerdoes not constitute an appointment to any new office or even %o anyoffice as such. The Judges nominated by the Minister were alreadyJudges of the Supreme Court, and in holding a Trial at Bar under section440a of the Criminal Procedure Code they function as Judges of theSupreme Court and in no other capacity.
352
ORDER OF COURT—The Queen v. Liyanage and others
The power of nomination conferred on the Minister is no different* insubstance from the power exercised by the Chief Justice to nominate abench of Judges to hear and determine a cause either by virtue of hisstatutory power under section 51 of the Courts Ordinance or by virtueof his conventional function in nominating Judges to hear certain other'matters. There are various provisions in the Courts Ordinance for thehearing of appeals, applications and other cases in the exercise of theOriginal criminal jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by one, two, threeor more Judges. The power to nominate the judges in cases where noexpress statutory provision has been made therefor appears to us toreside in the Court, although it is correct to say that by convention itis the Chief Justice who, for purposes of convenience, exercises suchpower. Can it be seriously contended that every time the Chief Justiceso nominates a judge or judges, whether by virtue of his statutory or hisconventional powers, he is appointing judges to particular offices asdistinct and separate from the offices to which they were appointed bythe Governor-General ? Had the Minister, of course, purported, tonominate any person who did not hold the office of a Judge of the SupremeCourt to officiate as a Judge at this Trial at Bar, he would undoubtedlyhave been purporting to appoint a person to the office of a Judge incontravention of section 52 (1) of the Order in Council. We thereforethink that the nomination of the judges by the Minister in this instanceis not an appointment by him of any person to the office of a Judge ofthe Supreme Court. The nomination is not ultra vires on that ground.Nor do we think that it is possible for us to uphold the defence contentionthat the Minister, by this act of nomination, has constituted or createda new tribunal distinct and separate from the Supreme Court.
Another argument advanced by the defence was that the SupremeCourt is one and indivisible and. that the power of nomination given tothe Minister by section 9 violated the unity and indivisibility of theCourt. There can be no doubt that the existence of the Supreme Court-is impliedly entrenched by section 52 of the Order in Council. Theentrenched provisions in the Constitution in respect of the appointment,tenure, salary and removal of Judges of the Supreme Court will haveno meaning if the Supreme Court is abolished. We are, however, unableto accept the proposition that the entire j urisdiction vested in the SupremeCourt by the Courts Ordinance and other Statutes at the time of thecoming into force of the 1946 Constitution is also entrenched as part ofthe Constitution or that no part of that jurisdiction can be removed andvested in a judicial officer or otherwise abolished by Parliament by lawpassed by a simple majority.
I
Section 6 of the Courts Ordinance enacts that there shall continue tobe within Ceylon one Supreme Court which shall be called “ The SupremeCourt of the Island of Ceylon ”. There was a similar provision in section 5of the Charter of 1833 which established the Supreme Court. Underthe Courts Ordinance judges sitting apart singly or in various combinationsare empowered to exercise the several jurisdictions of the Supreme Court.
ORDER OF COURT—The Queen v. Liyanage and others
355
powers are expressly or by implication excluded from the scope of ChapterIII (The Judicature) but what powers are expressly or by implicationincluded in it ”. Is the power of nomination or selection of judges tohear a particular cause an implied power, in this sense, of the judicature.On such occasions as our law (except in this impugned instance) has madeexpress provision therefor it has been reposed in a member of the Judi-cature, and where no express provision has been made the implication isstrong that it is the Court itself that can effect the nomination or selection.That indeed has been the un-questioned practice for about a centuryand a half in this country.
The impugned section seeks to change this consistent and long-established practice. Is the change intra vires the Legislature’s powers ?
“ It is always a serious and responsible duty ”, said Isaacs J. in FederalCommissioner of Taxation v. Munrol, to declare invalid, regardless ofconsequences, what the national Parliament representing the wholepeople of Australia, has considered necessary or desirable for the publicwelfare. The Court charged with the guardianship of the fundamentallaw of the Constitution may find that duty inescapable. Approachingthe challenged legislation with a mind judicially clear of any doubt asto its propriety or expediency—as we must, in order that we may notourselves transgress the Constitution or obscure the issue before us—thequestion is : Has Parliament, on the true construction of the enactment,misunderstood and gone beyond its constitutional powers ? It is areceived canon, of judicial construction to apply in cases of this kindwith more than ordinary anxiety the maxim ‘ ut res magis valeat quampereat ’. Unless, therefore, it becomes clear beyond reasonable doubtthat the legislation in question transgresses the limits laid down in theorganic law of the Constitution, it must be allowed to stand as theexpression of the national will.”
Bearing this principle in mind and recalling also that the judicialpower of the State is vested in the Judicature (in which is included theSupreme Court), let us examine the question whether the nomination orselection of judges to hear a particular case, while itself not a part of thestrict judicial power or the essence of judicial power in the sense of thedefinition of Griffiths C.J., is yet so much incidental to the exercise ofthat power or an incident in the exercise of that power as to form part ofthat power itself.
The Privy Council in the case of The Shell Co. of Australia Ltd. v.Federal Commissioner of Taxation 2 expressed itself in agreement withIsaacs J. when he stated in Federal Commissioner for Taxation v. Munro{supra) that “ there are many functions which are either inconsistentwith strict judicial action, as the arbitral function in Alexander's case,or are consistent with either strict judicial or executive action. Ifinconsistent with judicial action, the question is at once answered. Ifconsistent with either strictly judicial or executive action, the mattermust be examined further. ”
1 [1926) 38 C. L. R. at 180.
8 (1931) A. G. at 275.
356
ORDER OF COURT—The Queen v. Liyanage and others
Then again, in The Queen v. Davison 1, Dixon C. J. and Me Tier nan J.in the High Court of Australia, in referring to the observation of theCourt in Queen Victoria Memorial Hospital v. Thornton (supra), whichwe have already reproduced earlier, stated that “ it is this double aspectwhich some acts or functions may bear that makes it so difficult todefine the judicial power. … An extreme example of a function
that may be given to courts as an incident of judicial power or dealtwith directly as an exercise of legislative power is that of makingprocedural rules of court. The proper attribution of this power is amatter that has received much attention in the United States ”, where,according to Dean Roscoe Pound’s thesis on the subject, historicallyand analytically it is the function of the courts to regulate their procedure.Said Dean Pound :—
“ In doubtful cases, however, we employ a historical criterion.We ask whether, at the time our Constitutions were adopted, thepower in question was exercised by the Crown, by Parliament, orby the Judges. Unless analysis compels us to say in a given casethat there is a historical anomaly, we are guided chiefly by thehistorical criterion.”
•
Said Dixon C. J. and Me Tieman J. in Davison's case (supra) at p. 369 :—
“ The truth is that the ascertainment of existing rights by thejudicial determination of issues of fact or law falls exclusively withinthe judicial power so that Parliament cannot confide the functionto any person or body but a court constituted under sections 71 and72 of the Constitution, and this may also be true of some duties orpowers hitherto invariably discharged by courts under our system ofjurisprudence but not exactly of the foregoing description. ”
In a case arising upon an interpretation of the American Constitution,where the difficulty was in distinguishing between a legislative and ajudicial proceeding, it was held that the end accomplished may bedecisive. Said Holmes J. in Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co 2 , “ thenature of the final act determines the nature of the previous inquiry ”.Though the purpose to which this test was put by Holmes J. was todistinguish a judicial from a legislative function, Dixon C.J. and MeTiernan J. thought, and we respectfully agree with them, that it mayusefully be applied by analogy to ascertain whether a thing is doneadministratively or as an exercise of judicial power.
A somewhat different approach to the problem appealed to Kitto J.in the same case—at pp. 381-2—when he stated :—
V It is well to remember that the framers of the Constitution, indistributing the functions of government amongst separate organs,were giving effect to a doctrine which was not a product of abstractreasoning alone, and was not based upon precise definitions of the
1 (1954) 90 C. L. B. at 369.
* (1908) 211 U. S. 210.
ORDER OF COURT—The Queen v. Liyanage and others
357
terms employed …. and it is safe to say that neither in Englandnor elsewhere had any precise tests by which the respective functionsof the three organs might be distinguished ever come to be generally
accepted. The reason, I think, is not far to seekthe
separation of powers doctrine is properly speaking a doctrine not somuch about the separation of functions as about the separation offunctionaries …. For it still remains true firstly, that differentskills and professional habits are needed at the different levels oflaw-making ; and secondly, that concern for individual liberty willalways see one of its chief safeguards in the precautionary disposalof law-making power. It may accordingly be said that when theConstitution of the Commonwealth prescribes as a safeguard ofindividual liberty a distribution of the functions of governmentamongst separate bodies, and does so by requiring a distinction to bemaintained between powers described as legislative, executive andjudicial, it is using terms which refer, not to fundamental functionaldifferences between powers, but to distinctions generally acceptedat a time when the Constitution was framed between classes of powersrequiring different “ skills and professional habits ” in the authoritiesentrusted with their exercise.
For this reason it seems to me that where the Parliament makes ageneral law which needs specified action to be taken to bring aboutits application in particular cases, and the question arises whetherthe Constitution requires that the power to take that action shall becommitted to the judiciary to the exclusion of the executive, or to theexecutive to the exclusion of the judiciary, the answer may often befound by considering how similar or comparable powers were in facttreated in this country at the time the Constitution was in fact prepared.Where the action to be taken is of a kind which had come by 1900 tobe so consistently regarded as peculiarly appropriate for judicialperformance that it then occupied an acknowledged place in thestructure of the judicial system, the conclusion, it seems to me, isinevitable that the power to take that action is within the conceptof judicial power as the framers of the Constitution must be takento have understood it. ”
As we have already stated, section 9 of Act No. 1 of 1962 is a novelprovision of law the like of which does not hitherto appear to havefound a place in any recognised system of law. We find ourselvesechoing here the words of Bonser C.J. used, in another context, in anold Ceylon case, Rode v. Bawa,1 that “ there is no case exactly like thisto be found in the books, for I suppose such a case never happened before.*’The right of a judge to exercise judicial power is so inextricably boundup with the actual exercise of the power and is such an essential stepin the exercise of the strictly judicial power that it must, in our opinion,be considered part of the power itself. Unless the Legislature hasvested the exercise of any strictly judicial power in the entire Supreme
> (1896) 1 N. L. R. at 374.
358
ORDER OF COURT—The Queen v. Liyanage and others
Court, it is necessary that a bench of Judges should be nominated toexercise that judicial power vested in the Supreme Court. If the powerof nomination is completely abolished, no judicial power vested in thecourt can be exercised. If that power is vested in an outside authority,it will legally be open to such authority to exercise that power to preventa particular judge or judges from exercising any part of the strictlyjudicial power vested in them by the Constitution as judges of. theSupreme Court. The absurdity of such a possible result will be moremarked if, instead of the position of a Puisne Justice of the Court, theposition of the Chief Justice himself be considered. Under a provisionof law of this nature it seems to us legally possible to exclude the ChiefJustice himself from presiding in the Court of which he is the constitu-tionally appointed Head. The exercise of the power to nominate canthen in practice result in a total negation of the judicial power of a judgeor judges vested in them by the Constitution.
Then, again, if the power to nominate or select judges can be constitu-tionally reposed in the Minister on the ground that it is no more thanan exclusively administrative act, we can see nothing in law to preventsuch a power being conferred on any other official, whether a partyinterested in the litigation or not. The fact that the power of nominationso conferred is capable of abuse so as to deprive a judge of the entrenchedpower vested in him by virtue of his appointment under section 52of the Order in Council, or at least to derogate from that power, is aconsideration which is not an unimportant one in deciding whetherthe conferring of this power by section 9 on a person who is not a judgeof the Supreme Court is ultra vires the Constitution.. It may, of course,be contended that the power is capable of abuse even if it is grantedto a Judge of the Supreme Court or, for that matter, to the entire Court.However, the proper authority under the Constitution to exercise [thispower appears to be the Judicature itself.1•
Although the cases to which we have made reference in this Orderhave been decided in Australia or the United States of America againstthe background of their respective Constitutions, it does not appearto us to bo illegitimate to apply the tests referred to therein in a solutionof the problem with which we are confronted in this case.
Applying the historical test indicated by Dean Pound or following theapproach approved in the judgment of Kitto J. we have referred to, weare met with the fact that at all times prior to the enactment of theCriminal Law (Special Provisions) Act, No. 1 of 1962, this power ofnomination was invariably vested in the Judicature. Whenever therewas no express vesting of this power it was always exercised by HerMajesty’s Courts and the Judges thereof. As we have already stated,no instance has been cited either in this country or in any country of theBritish Commonwealth of Nations where such a right of nomination orselection has been granted to anyone outside the Judicature.
ORDER OF COURT—The Queen v. Liyanage and others
359
On the other hand, if we were to apply what may be termed, for brevity,as the Holmes test and inquire what is the end or purpose in view in makingthis nomination there can be only one answer, viz. to exercise the strictlyjudicial power of the State. In this sense too, the Statute has purportedto confer judicial power on the Minister.
For reasons which we have endeavoured to indicate above, we are .of opinion that because
the power of nomination conferred on the Minister is an inter-
ference with the exercise by the Judges of the Supreme Courtof the strict judicial power of the State vested in them byvirtue of their appointment in terms of section 52 of the Ceylon(Constitution) Order in Council, 1946, or is in derogationthereof, and
the power of nomination is one which has hitherto been invariably
exercised by the Judicature as being part of the exercise ofthe judicial power of the State, and cannot be reposed in anyoneoutside the Judicature,
section 9 of the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Act, No. 1 of 1962, isultra vires the Constitution.
This conclusion we have reached on the validity of the law conferringthe power of nomination on the Minister deprives us of jurisdiction to ’enter upon a Trial at Bar of these defendants. In ordinary circums-tances, therefore, there would have been nothing more to be said at thisstage. We, nevertheless, propose to refer to another objection of afundamental character raised by Mr. Ponnambalam and supported byother counsel for the defence. Even if the power of nomination is intravires the. Constitution, does it offend, in the context of this particularcase, against that cardinal principle in the administration of justicewhich has been repeatedly stated by Judges and which was restate"! in1924 by Lord Hewart C. J. in R v. Sussex Justices, ex parte Me Carthy1as follows :—
“ It is not merely of some importance, but is of fundamental impor-tance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and
undoubtedly be seen to be doneNothing is to be done which
creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper interference. with the course of justice. ”
Under section 440a of the Criminal Procedure Code as it stood priorto 1962 the Minister had merely the right to direct that the trial be held- before the Supreme Court by three Judges without a jury. But thenew legislation, passed, with retroactive effect, after the commission ofthe offences alleged, has purported to vest in the Minister, a memberof the Government which the defendants are alleged to have conspiredto overthrow by unlawful means and who, it was not disputed, had
1 (1924) 1 K. B. at 259.
3G0
ORDER OF COURT—The Queen v. Liyanage and others
participated in the investigation and interrogation of some of the defen-dants, the additional power to nominate the three Judges. This power,as indicated already, had hitherto been vested in the Supreme Courtas a body or in the Chief Justice, but certainly in no person or bodyoutside the Judicature. This is the first occasion on which an attempthas been made to vest this power in such an outsider, and that too incircumstances where the propriety of the nomination becomes, by reasonof the doctrine of ministerial responsibility, discussable in Parliamentinvolving, perhaps, the merits and demerits of respective Judges, whereasunder the previous law the Judges enjoyed freedom from being thesubject of such a discussion.
A court cannot inquire into the motives of legislators. The circum-stances set out above are, however, such as to put this court on enquiryas to whether the ordinary or reasonable man would feel that this courtitself may be biassed. What is the impression that is likely to be createdin the mind of the ordinary or reasonable man by this sudden and, itmust be presumed, purposeful change of the law, after the event, affectingthe selection of Judges ? Will he not be justified in asking himself,
“ Why should the Minister, who must be deemed to be interested in theresult of the case, be given the power to select the Judges whereas theother party to the cause has no say whatever in a selection ? Have notthe ordinary canons of justice and fairplay been violated ?” Will he•harbour the impression, honestly though mistakenly formed, that therehas been an improper interference with the course of justice ? In thatsituation will be not suspect even the impartiality of the Bench thusnominated ?
Examining previous instances where this principle has been applied,we find Swift J. in JR v. Essex Justices, ex parte Perkins1 stating that“ it is essential that justice should be so administered as to satisfy reason-able persons that the tribunal is impartial and unbiassed”, and Bucknill
J.observing in Cottle v. Cottle 2 that the test to be applied is “ whetheror not a reasonable man in all the circumstances might suppose thatthere was an improper interference with the course of justice.” Ourown Court of Criminal Appeal has, in The King v. Beyal Singho 3, formu-lated the rule thus :—“Nothing is to be done which raises a suspicionthat there has been an improper interference with the course of justice. ”
Guiding ourselves by these tests and those applied in other cases 4 wehave examined, we find it difficult to resist the conclusion that the power-of nomination conferred on the Minister offends the cardinal principleas restated by Lord Hewart. For that reason, even had we come to a
1 {1927) 2 K. B. at 4SS.2 {1939) 2 A. E. B. 541.
{1946) 4S N. L. R. at 27.
{a) Eckerslcy v. Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, {1S94) 2 Q. B. 670.
(6) Rodev. Bawa {supra).'
Dingiri Mahalmaya v. Mudiyanse, {1922) 24 N. L. R. 377.
Ruthira Reddiar v. Subba Reddiar {1937) 39 N. L. R. 14.
(c) The King v. Caldera {1938) 11 C. L. W. 1.
(/) Kandaeamy v. Subramaniam {1961) 63 N. L. R. 574.
ORDER OF COURT—The Queen v. Liyanage and others
361
different conclusion regarding the validity of section 9 of the CriminalLaw (Special Provisions) Act, we would have been compelled to give wayto this principle which has now become ingrained in the administrationof common justice in this country.
Sgd. T. S. Fernando,
Puisne Justice.
Sgd. L. B. de Sjxva,
Puisne Justice.
Sgd. P. Sri Skanda Rajah,
Puisne Justice.
Preliminary objection as to jurisdiction of the Court upheld.
Document “ A *
Direction under Section 440a of the Criminal Procedure Code as amendedby Section 4 of the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Act, No. 1 of 1962
To the Honourable the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Island of Ceylon.
Samuel Peter Christopher Fernando, Minister of Justice, by virtue of the powervested in me by Section 440a (1) (a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, as amended bySection 4 of the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Act, No. 1 of 1962, do herebydirect that the trial of the following persons, to wit,
Don John Francis Douglas Liyanage
Maurice Ann Gerard de Mel
Frederick Cecil de Saram
Cyril Cyrus Dissanayaka
Sidney Godfrey de Zoysa
Gerard Royce Maxwell de Mel
Wilmot Selvanayagam Abraham
S. Bastianpillai Ignatius Loyola%
Wilton George White
362
ORDER OF COURT—The Queen v. Liyanage and others
Nimal Stanley Jayakody
Anthony John Bernard Anghie
Don Edmond Weerasinghe
Noel Vivian Mathysz
Victor Leslie Percival Joseph
Basil Raj an diram Jesudasan
Victor Joseph Harold Gunasekera
John Anthony Rajaratnam Felix
William Emost Chelliah Jebanesan
Torronco Victor Wijcsingho
Lionel Christopher Stanley Jirasingho
Vith anage E lster Perera
David Sonadirajah Thambyah
Samuel Gardner Jackson
Rodney de Mel
in respect of the following offences under Chapter VI of the Penal Code, to wit,
That on or about tho 27th day of January, 1962, at Colombo, Kalutara,
Ambalangoda, Galle, Matara and other places, they with others did conspire towage war against the Queen and thereby committed an offence punishable underSection 115 of the Penal Code as amended by Section 6 (2) of the Criminal.Law (Spocial Provisions) Act, No. 1 of 1962, read with Section 114 of the PenalCode.,
That on or about tho 27th day of January, 1962, at Colombo, Kalutara,
Ambalangoda, Galle, Matara and other places, they with others did conspire tooverthrow otherwise than by lawful means the Government of Ceylon by lawestablished and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 115 of thiePenal Code as amended by Section 6 (2) of the Criminal Law (Special Provisions)Act, No. 1 of 1962.•
That on or about the 27th day of January, 1962, at Colombo, Kalutara,Ambalangoda, Galle, Matara and other places, they with others did prepare tooverthrow otherwise than by lawful means the Government of Ceylon by lawestablished and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 115 ofthe Penal Code as amended by Section 6 (2) of the Criminal Law (SpecialProvisions) Act, No. 1 of 1962.
bo held before the Supreme Court at Bar by throe Judges without a Jury.
Givon under my hand this 23rd day of June, 1962, at Colombo.
Sgd. Sam. P. C. Fernando.
Minister of Justice.
ORDER OF COURT—The Queen v. Liyanage and others
363
Document “ B **.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE ISLAND OF CEYLON
Information
Information exhibited by Her Majesty's Attorney-General
The Queenvs.
Don John Francis Douglas Liyanage
Maurice Ann Gerard de Mel
Frederick Cecil de Saram
Cyril Cyrus Dissanayaka
Sidney Godfrey de Zoysa
C. Gerard Royce Maxwell de Mel7. Wilmot S elv an ay again AbrahamS. Bostianpillai Ignatius Loyola
Wilton ‘George White
Nimal Stanley Jayakody
Anthony John Bernard Anghie
Don Edmond Weeraainghe
Noel Vivian Mathysz
Victor Leslie Percival Joseph
Basil Rajandiram Jesudasan
10. Victor Joseph Harold Gunasckera
John AnthoDy Rajaratnam Felix
William Ernest Chelliah Jebanesam
Terrence Victor Wijesinghe
Lionel Christopher Stanley Jirasinghe
Vithanage Elster Perera
David Senadirajah Thambyah
Samuel Gardner Jackson
Rodney de Mel
Defendants.
This 23rd day of June, 1962.
364
ORDER OF COURT—The Queen v. Liyanage and others
BE it remembered that Douglas St. Clive Budd Jansze’, Esquire, Queen’s Counsel,Her Majosty’s Attorney-General for the Island of Ceylon, who fo>r Her Majesty inthis behalf prosooutes, gives the Court to understand and be informed that—
On or about the 27th day of January, 1962, at Colombo, Ealutara,Ambalongoda, Galle, Matara and other places within the jurisdiction of thisCourt, the defendants abovenamed with others did conspire to wage war againstthe Queen and did thereby commit an offence punishable under Section 115 of thePenal Code as amended by Section 6 (2) of the Criminal Law (Special Provisions)Act, No. 1 of 1962, read with Section 114 of the Penal Code.
At the time and places aforesaid and in the course of the same transactionthe defendants abovenamed with others did conspire to overthrow otherwise thanby lawful means the Government of Ceylon by law established and did therebycommit an offence punishablo under Section 115 of the Penal Code as amended bySection 6 (2) of tho Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Act No. 1 of 1962.
At tho time and places aforesaid and in the courso of the same transactiontho defendants abovenamed with others did prepare to overthrow otherwise thanby lawful means tho Government of Coylon by law established and did therebycommit an offence punishable under Section 115 of tho Penal Code as amended bySection 6 (2) of the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Act, No. 1 of 1962.
WHEREUPON Her Majesty’s Attorney-General prays the consideration of theCourt here in the premises, and that due process of law may be awarded against thodefendants abovenamed, in this behalf to make them answer to Our Sovereign Ladythe Queon touching and concerning the premises aforesaid.
Sgd. D. Jansze,A ttomey-General.
Document “ C
Nomination made by the Minister of Justice under Section 9 of the CriminalLaw (Special Provisions) Act, No. 1 of 1962
WHEREAS, I, SAMUEL PETER CHRISTOPHER FERNANDO, Minister ofJustice, havo on tho Twenty-third day of June 1962, issued a direction undorSoction 440a of the Criminal Procedure Code, as amended by Section 4 of thoCriminal Law (Special Provisions) Act, No. 1 of 1962, requiring that the trial of thefollowing persons, to wit,
Don John Francis Douglas Liyanage
Maurice Ann Gerard de Mol
Frederick Cecil de Soram
Cyril Cyrus Dissanayaka
5- Sidney Godfrey de Zoysa
ORDER OF COURT—The Queen v. Liyandge and others
365
Gerard Royce Maxwell de Mel
Wilmot Selvonayagam Abraham
BastianpiUai Ignatius Loyola
Wilton George White
Nimal Stanley Jayakody
Anthony John Bernard Anghie
Don Edmond Weerasinghe
Noel Vivian Mathysz
Victor Leslie Percival Joseph
Basil Raj andiram Jesudasan
Victor Joseph Harold Gunosekera
John Anthony Rajaratnam Felix
William Ernest Cholliah Jebanesan
Terrence Victor Wijesinghe
Lionel Christopher Stanley Jirasinghe
Vithansge Elster Perera
David Senadirajah Thambyah
Samuel Gardner Jackson
Rodney de Mel
in respect of the following offences under Chapter VI of the Penal Code, to wit,
That on or about the 27th day of January, 1962, they with others didconspire to wage war against the Queen and thereby committed an offence
. punishable under Section 115 of the Penal Code as amended by Section 6 (2) of theCriminal Law (Special Provisions) Act, No. 1 of 1962, read with Section 114 of thePenal Code.
That on or about the 27th day of January, 1962, they with others didconspire to overthrow otherwise than by lawful means the Government of Ceylonby law established and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 115of the Penal Code as amended by Section 6 (2) of tho Criminal Law (SpecialProvisions) Act, No. 1 of 1962.
That on or about the 27th day of January, 1962, they with others didprepare to overthrow otherwise than by lawful means the Government of Ceylonby law established and thereby committed on offence punishable under Section 115of the Ponal Code as amended by Section 6 (2) of tho Criminal Law (SpecialProvisions) Act, No. 1 of 1962.
3GG
Rajeswararanee v. Sunlhararasa
bo hold bofore tho Supreme Court at Bar by three Judges .without a Jury :
NOW THEREFORE, I, Samuel Peter Christopher Fernando, Ministerof Justico, in pursuance of the power vested in mo by Section 9 of tho CriminalLaw (Special Provisions) Act, No. 1 of 1962, do hereby nominate
The Honourable Thu sew Samuel Fernando, C.B.E., Q.C.
The Honourable Leonard Bernice De Silva
The Honourable Ponnudurazsamy Sri S eland a Rajah
Judges of the Supreme Court of tho Island of Ceylon, to be the throe Judges whoshall presido over the trial of the aforementioned persons to bo held in pursuance oftho aforementioned direction.
Given under my hand this 23rd day of June, 1962.
Sgd. Sam. P. C. Fernando,
Minister of Justice.
To The Honourable the Chief Justice,Colombo.