•  Initial report detailed High Court Judge summoned another Judge regarding order.
• Writ application filed by three senior Bar members protecting Rule of Law.
• Dr. Romesh de Silva PC argued Judges cannot be questioned on judicial orders.
•  Court issued interim order stopping steps on the summons.
•  Attorney General later gave undertaking Judge would not be summoned as witness.
•  Petitioners accepted relief; proceedings ended as principle accepted

 In a first time occurrence in the history of the country, a High Court Judge, at the request of the Attorney General’s Department, issued summons on another High Court Judge in order to question him regarding the correctness and accuracy of an order made by him.

The matter arose in criminal proceedings instituted against Yoshitha Rajapaksa.

Thereafter, three senior members of the Bar instituted filed a writ application in the Court of Appeal seeking to quash the summons, stating that their objective was to protect the Rule of Law and the independence of the Judiciary. The Petitioners were President’s Counsel Uditha Egalahewa, President’s Counsel Farman Cassim and senior Attorney-at-Law Sugath Caldera.

The case was taken up on June 2 and Dr. Romesh de Silva, PC, appearing for the Petitioners and leading several President’s Counsel, submitted in the Court of Appeal that the application had been filed in the public interest to safeguard the Rule of Law and the independence of the Judiciary.

Counsel drew the attention of Court to the Constitution, which recognizes the independence of the Judiciary as an intangible heritage of the people of Sri Lanka. He submitted that Sri Lanka had consistently recognized and protected judicial independence.

Dr. de Silva expressed appreciation to the three Petitioners for having come forward to protect the Rule of Law and the independence of the Judiciary. He stated that it was the duty of the Bar to protect the judiciary, because Judges by nature of their office cannot defend themselves.

He submitted that a Judge could not be questioned regarding an order made by him in his judicial capacity. Counsel contended that judicial orders are subject to appeal and that, ultimately, orders of the Supreme Court are final and conclusive. He argued that no Judge, whether of a primary court or the Supreme Court, could be questioned regarding the correctness or accuracy of an order delivered in the exercise of judicial functions.

Counsel accepted that a judicial order itself may be subjected to scrutiny and analysis in an appropriate forum. However, he submitted that the Judge who delivered the order could not be questioned concerning its correctness.

Referring to the facts of the present case, Dr. de Silva submitted that the High Court Judge had been summoned to explain the basis upon which he had made the order in question. He maintained that, irrespective of the correctness of the order itself, the sole issue before Court was whether a Judge could be compelled to answer questions regarding an order delivered by him. Counsel submitted that such a course was totally impermissible.

State Counsel, in lengthy submissions, objecting to the interim order and notice informed Court that the intention behind summoning the Judge had been to question the Judge regarding the procedural steps adopted by him and to demonstrate that the order had been made contrary to law.

The Court of Appeal, comprising the President of the Court of Appeal Justice Rohantha Abeysuriya and Justice Priyantha Fernando, thereafter adjourned to consider the matter and subsequently issued an interim order preventing any further steps being taken pursuant to the summons that had been issued.

The interim order was made operative for a period of one week in order to afford the Attorney General an opportunity, if necessary, to make further submissions.

When the matter was next called on June 12, State Counsel informed Court that the Attorney General had reconsidered his position and would give an undertaking to the Court of Appeal that the High Court Judge would not be summoned to give evidence.

Upon a request made by Dr. de Silva and after hearing submissions, the Attorney General further undertook that the Judge’s name would be removed from the list of witnesses filed in the High Court.

The Petitioners took the position that the undertakings furnished by the Attorney General substantially granted the relief sought in the application and accordingly stated that the proceedings could be brought to an end, as the principle contended for by the Petitioners had been accepted.

Dr. de Silva thanked the Attorney General for his reconsidered position.

It is noted that the State Counsel who appeared on behalf of the Judge who had issued the summons had previously appeared as junior counsel for the State before that same Judge when the summons had originally been issued at the request of the State.

 Dr. Romesh De Silva PC with

Mr. Ikram Mohommed PC

Mr. Manohara De Silva PC

Mr. Rohan Sahabandu PC

Mr. Sanjeewa Jayawardena PC

Mr. Saliya Peirs PC

Mr. N.R Sivendran AAL

Mr. Niran Anketell AAL

Mr. S.V Niles AAL

Mr.Pasindu Bandara AAL

Mr. Sahan Ginige AAL appeared for the Petitioners. Mr Oswald Perera State Counsel with Sajitha Bandara State Counsel appeared for the Attorney General and the second Respondent Hon Udesh Ranatunga under whose hand the Summons has been issued. Mr Chandaka Jayasundera PC appeared for Hon Sahan Mapa Bandara the third Respondent on 12th June 2026.