Features
THE JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION
A Review of the Speaker’s Ruling
It was reported that the Speaker has rejected a motion submitted to him by 31 Members of Parliament requesting the appointment of a Select Committee of Parliament to examine the exercise by the Judicial Service Commission of its powers relating to “the appointment, promotion, transfer, dismissal, and disciplinary control” of judicial officers. The reason for the rejection of the motion, as stated by him, is that compliance with the motion “would be a derogation of the independence of the judiciary and thereby a derogation of the judicial power of the People”. It is the view of Speaker Wickremaratne that the Judicial Service Commission “exercises the judicial power of the People”. That, I submit, is the fundamental flaw in the Speaker’s Ruling.
The Queen v. Liyanage
As far back as 1962, in the coup case of The Queen v. Liyanage, (Trial at Bar No.1 of 1962), the Supreme Court comprising Justice T.S. Fernando, Justice L.B. de Silva, and Justice Sri Skanda Rajah comprehensively examined the concept of “judicial power” and held as follows:
“Judicial power in the sense of the judicial power of the State is vested in the Judicature, i.e. the established civil courts of this country.
The Court proceeded to note that:
The Chief Justice and at least one other Judge of the Supreme Court are members of the Judicial Service Commission, a body performing executive functions.”
The Speaker’s Ruling does not state why it chose not to follow, or even refer to, that authoritative statement of the Supreme Court.
Speaker Anura Bandaranaike’s Ruling
The Speaker’s Ruling commences with a reference to what it describes as “a similar ruling” by Speaker Anura Bandaranaike in 2001. The issue in 2001 was fundamentally different. On that occasion, the Supreme Court attempted to prevent a motion for the impeachment of the then Chief Justice from being proceeded with in Parliament. Speaker Bandaranaike very correctly held that the Judiciary had no right to interfere with proceedings in the Legislature. On the other hand, these two institutions of government do, on occasion, interact. It is the Supreme Court that interprets the laws enacted by Parliament, and it is Parliament that has the power to remove from office a Judge of the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal.
The 1947 and 1977 Constitutions
The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) which the Supreme Court recognized as an executive (and not a judicial) body was initially established by the 1947 Constitution and vested with the power of appointment, transfer, dismissal and disciplinary control of judicial officers and specified public officers employed in courts. The Speaker’s Ruling appears to be in error when it suggests that the JSC was “first introduced by the 17th Amendment” to the present Constitution. In fact, it was established (or more accurately, “re-established”) by Article 112 of the Constitution of 1978. That Article restored the JSC consisting of “the Chief Justice who shall be the Chairman, and two Judges of the Supreme Court appointed by the President”, following the repeal of the 1972 Constitution. Article 55 of the 1978 Constitution stated that “The appointment, transfer, dismissal and disciplinary control of judicial officers is hereby vested in the Judicial Service Commission”.
The 1972 Constitution
The 1972 Constitution which created the Republic of Sri Lanka, in a significant departure from the 1947 Constitution, replaced the JSC with a Judicial Services Advisory Board (JSAB) and a Judicial Services Disciplinary Board (JSDB). The Cabinet was the designated appointing authority of District Judges and Magistrates, and while the JSDB shared the power of removal of a judicial officer with the National State Assembly, its exercise of that power was required to be reported immediately to the Cabinet of Ministers. While serving as Secretary to the Ministry of Justice, I was appointed a member of the JSAB and served on that body for five years. So did the Attorney-General. Neither of us belonged to the Judiciary; nor were either of us entitled to exercise “judicial power”.
The Committee Stage Debate
The motion submitted by 31 Members of Parliament requesting the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the exercise by the JSC of its powers conferred by the Constitution appears to have been the immediate consequence of the stormy committee stage debate on the finance allocation for the JSC in the 2026 Budget. The fact that the salaries of the Judges of the Supreme Court are charged on the Consolidated Fund (and therefore not subject to debate or parliamentary vote), but that when three of the Judges serve as members of the JSC, their conduct in that capacity can be impugned on the floor of the House, as did actually happen, is sufficient indication that the JSC is not exercising “judicial power”. Nor is the Council of Legal Education exercising “judicial power” merely because it is chaired by the Chief Justice and includes among its members the Judges of the Supreme Court.
The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct
The proposed Select Committee, which the Speaker declined to appoint, intended to examine, inter alia, the exercise by the JSC of its power of disciplinary control, including the dismissal, of judicial officers, and make recommendations for improvement. In that connection, I wish to make two observations. The first is that Sri Lanka is today one of the very few countries in the world that has failed or neglected to adopt or apply the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, the gold standard mandated by the United Nations General Assembly over twenty years ago. That document, which was examined and approved by Chief Justices of both common law and civil law jurisdictions, as well as by the Judges of the International Court of Justice, identifies and defines the six fundamental judicial values, namely, Independence, Impartiality, Integrity, Propriety, Equality, and Competence and Diligence, and proceeds, in a 175-page Commentary, to set out and explain in detail the manner in which Judges are expected to conform to them. In the absence of this standard-setting instrument, what is the criteria adopted in Sri Lanka to determine whether a judge or judicial officer is keeping faith with the judicial oath?
Measures for the Effective Implementation of the Bangalore Principles, also endorsed by the United Nations, contains procedures for the disciplining of judges, as well as for the removal of judges from office. Are these procedures being followed by the JSC? These are questions which the proposed Select Committee alone could have explored.
The Istanbul Declaration on Transparency in the Judicial Process
Another relevant instrument is the Istanbul Declaration on Transparency in the Judicial Process. It was initially examined at a conference of Chief Justices of the Asian-Pacific region, then at a conference of Chief Justices of the Balkan region, before being finally adopted in 2017 at a conference of Chief Justices from North and South America, the Caribbean, Europe, Asia and the Pacific, It too was endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly. That instrument describes, inter alia, how the relevant authority should respond to complaints of unethical conduct of judges, as well as the disciplinary process of judges. The proposed Select Committee could have inquired into and reported on whether the JSC acts in conformity with these international standards?
Conclusion
It is unfortunate that the Speaker’s Ruling, which cites with approval a 1748 statement of Montesquieu and Erskine May’s 1815 thesis on British parliamentary procedure, failed to explain why it rejected our own Supreme Court’s recognition of the Judicial Service Commission as an Executive and not a Judicial body. It is also unfortunate that the Ruling has denied Parliament the opportunity to inquire into and report on practices and procedures relating to appointments, promotions, transfers, dismissals and disciplinary control of judicial officers currently followed by the Judicial Service Commission, and to recommend how, and the urgency with which, such practices and procedures should be updated to conform to contemporary international standards.
Dr Nihal Jayawickrama ✍️
Features
Ranking public services with AI — A roadmap to reviving institutions like SriLankan Airlines
Efficacy measures an organisation’s capacity to achieve its mission and intended outcomes under planned or optimal conditions. It differs from efficiency, which focuses on achieving objectives with minimal resources, and effectiveness, which evaluates results in real-world conditions. Today, modern AI tools, using publicly available data, enable objective assessment of the efficacy of Sri Lanka’s government institutions.
Among key public bodies, the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka emerges as the most efficacious, outperforming the Department of Inland Revenue, Sri Lanka Customs, the Election Commission, and Parliament. In the financial and regulatory sector, the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL) ranks highest, ahead of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Public Utilities Commission, the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission, the Insurance Regulatory Commission, and the Sri Lanka Standards Institution.
Among state-owned enterprises, the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA) leads in efficacy, followed by Bank of Ceylon and People’s Bank. Other institutions assessed included the State Pharmaceuticals Corporation, the National Water Supply and Drainage Board, the Ceylon Electricity Board, the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, and the Sri Lanka Transport Board. At the lower end of the spectrum were Lanka Sathosa and Sri Lankan Airlines, highlighting a critical challenge for the national economy.
Sri Lankan Airlines, consistently ranked at the bottom, has long been a financial drain. Despite successive governments’ reform attempts, sustainable solutions remain elusive.
Globally, the most profitable airlines operate as highly integrated, technology-enabled ecosystems rather than as fragmented departments. Operations, finance, fleet management, route planning, engineering, marketing, and customer service are closely coordinated, sharing real-time data to maximise efficiency, safety, and profitability.
The challenge for Sri Lankan Airlines is structural. Its operations are fragmented, overly hierarchical, and poorly aligned. Simply replacing the CEO or senior leadership will not address these deep-seated weaknesses. What the airline needs is a cohesive, integrated organisational ecosystem that leverages technology for cross-functional planning and real-time decision-making.
The government must urgently consider restructuring Sri Lankan Airlines to encourage:
=Joint planning across operational divisions
=Data-driven, evidence-based decision-making
=Continuous cross-functional consultation
=Collaborative strategic decisions on route rationalisation, fleet renewal, partnerships, and cost management, rather than exclusive top-down mandates
Sustainable reform requires systemic change. Without modernised organisational structures, stronger accountability, and aligned incentives across divisions, financial recovery will remain out of reach. An integrated, performance-oriented model offers the most realistic path to operational efficiency and long-term viability.
Reforming loss-making institutions like Sri Lankan Airlines is not merely a matter of leadership change — it is a structural overhaul essential to ensuring these entities contribute productively to the national economy rather than remain perpetual burdens.
By Chula Goonasekera – Citizen Analyst
Features
Why Pi Day?
International Day of Mathematics falls tomorrow
The approximate value of Pi (π) is 3.14 in mathematics. Therefore, the day 14 March is celebrated as the Pi Day. In 2019, UNESCO proclaimed 14 March as the International Day of Mathematics.
Ancient Babylonians and Egyptians figured out that the circumference of a circle is slightly more than three times its diameter. But they could not come up with an exact value for this ratio although they knew that it is a constant. This constant was later named as π which is a letter in the Greek alphabet.
It was the Greek mathematician Archimedes (250 BC) who was able to find an upper bound and a lower bound for this constant. He drew a circle of diameter one unit and drew hexagons inside and outside the circle such that the sides of each hexagon touch the sides of the circle. In mathematics the circle passing through all vertices of a polygon is called a ‘circumcircle’ and the largest circle that fits inside a polygon tangent to all its sides is called an ‘incircle’. The total length of the smaller hexagon then becomes the lower bound of π and the length of the hexagon outside the circle is the upper bound. He realised that by increasing the number of sides of the polygon can make the bounds get closer to the value of Pi and increased the number of sides to 12,24,48 and 60. He argued that by increasing the number of sides will ultimately result in obtaining the original circle, thereby laying the foundation for the theory of limits. He ended up with the lower bound as 22/7 and the upper bound 223/71. He could not continue his research as his hometown Syracuse was invaded by Romans and was killed by one of the soldiers. His last words were ‘do not disturb my circles’, perhaps a reference to his continuing efforts to find the value of π to a greater accuracy.
Archimedes can be considered as the father of geometry. His contributions revolutionised geometry and his methods anticipated integral calculus. He invented the pulley and the hydraulic screw for drawing water from a well. He also discovered the law of hydrostatics. He formulated the law of levers which states that a smaller weight placed farther from a pivot can balance a much heavier weight closer to it. He famously said “Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I will move the earth”.
Mathematicians have found many expressions for π as a sum of infinite series that converge to its value. One such famous series is the Leibniz Series found in 1674 by the German mathematician Gottfried Leibniz, which is given below.
π = 4 ( 1 – 1/3 + 1/5 – 1/7 + 1/9 – ………….)
The Indian mathematical genius Ramanujan came up with a magnificent formula in 1910. The short form of the formula is as follows.
π = 9801/(1103 √8)
For practical applications an approximation is sufficient. Even NASA uses only the approximation 3.141592653589793 for its interplanetary navigation calculations.
It is not just an interesting and curious number. It is used for calculations in navigation, encryption, space exploration, video game development and even in medicine. As π is fundamental to spherical geometry, it is at the heart of positioning systems in GPS navigations. It also contributes significantly to cybersecurity. As it is an irrational number it is an excellent foundation for generating randomness required in encryption and securing communications. In the medical field, it helps to calculate blood flow rates and pressure differentials. In diagnostic tools such as CT scans and MRI, pi is an important component in mathematical algorithms and signal processing techniques.
This elegant, never-ending number demonstrates how mathematics transforms into practical applications that shape our world. The possibilities of what it can do are infinite as the number itself. It has become a symbol of beauty and complexity in mathematics. “It matters little who first arrives at an idea, rather what is significant is how far that idea can go.” said Sophie Germain.
Mathematics fans are intrigued by this irrational number and attempt to calculate it as far as they can. In March 2022, Emma Haruka Iwao of Japan calculated it to 100 trillion decimal places in Google Cloud. It had taken 157 days. The Guinness World Record for reciting the number from memory is held by Rajveer Meena of India for 70000 decimal places over 10 hours.
Happy Pi Day!
The author is a senior examiner of the International Baccalaureate in the UK and an educational consultant at the Overseas School of Colombo.
by R N A de Silva
Features
Sheer rise of Realpolitik making the world see the brink
The recent humanly costly torpedoing of an Iranian naval vessel in Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone by a US submarine has raised a number of issues of great importance to international political discourse and law that call for elucidation. It is best that enlightened commentary is brought to bear in such discussions because at present misleading and uninformed speculation on questions arising from the incident are being aired by particularly jingoistic politicians of Sri Lanka’s South which could prove deleterious.
As matters stand, there seems to be no credible evidence that the Indian state was aware of the impending torpedoing of the Iranian vessel but these acerbic-tongued politicians of Sri Lanka’s South would have the local public believe that the tragedy was triggered with India’s connivance. Likewise, India is accused of ‘embroiling’ Sri Lanka in the incident on account of seemingly having prior knowledge of it and not warning Sri Lanka about the impending disaster.
It is plain that a process is once again afoot to raise anti-India hysteria in Sri Lanka. An obligation is cast on the Sri Lankan government to ensure that incendiary speculation of the above kind is defeated and India-Sri Lanka relations are prevented from being in any way harmed. Proactive measures are needed by the Sri Lankan government and well meaning quarters to ensure that public discourse in such matters have a factual and rational basis. ‘Knowledge gaps’ could prove hazardous.
Meanwhile, there could be no doubt that Sri Lanka’s sovereignty was violated by the US because the sinking of the Iranian vessel took place in Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone. While there is no international decrying of the incident, and this is to be regretted, Sri Lanka’s helplessness and small player status would enable the US to ‘get away with it’.
Could anything be done by the international community to hold the US to account over the act of lawlessness in question? None is the answer at present. This is because in the current ‘Global Disorder’ major powers could commit the gravest international irregularities with impunity. As the threadbare cliché declares, ‘Might is Right’….. or so it seems.
Unfortunately, the UN could only merely verbally denounce any violations of International Law by the world’s foremost powers. It cannot use countervailing force against violators of the law, for example, on account of the divided nature of the UN Security Council, whose permanent members have shown incapability of seeing eye-to-eye on grave matters relating to International Law and order over the decades.
The foregoing considerations could force the conclusion on uncritical sections that Political Realism or Realpolitik has won out in the end. A basic premise of the school of thought known as Political Realism is that power or force wielded by states and international actors determine the shape, direction and substance of international relations. This school stands in marked contrast to political idealists who essentially proclaim that moral norms and values determine the nature of local and international politics.
While, British political scientist Thomas Hobbes, for instance, was a proponent of Political Realism, political idealism has its roots in the teachings of Socrates, Plato and latterly Friedrich Hegel of Germany, to name just few such notables.
On the face of it, therefore, there is no getting way from the conclusion that coercive force is the deciding factor in international politics. If this were not so, US President Donald Trump in collaboration with Israeli Rightist Premier Benjamin Natanyahu could not have wielded the ‘big stick’, so to speak, on Iran, killed its Supreme Head of State, terrorized the Iranian public and gone ‘scot-free’. That is, currently, the US’ impunity seems to be limitless.
Moreover, the evidence is that the Western bloc is reuniting in the face of Iran’s threats to stymie the flow of oil from West Asia to the rest of the world. The recent G7 summit witnessed a coming together of the foremost powers of the global North to ensure that the West does not suffer grave negative consequences from any future blocking of western oil supplies.
Meanwhile, Israel is having a ‘free run’ of the Middle East, so to speak, picking out perceived adversarial powers, such as Lebanon, and militarily neutralizing them; once again with impunity. On the other hand, Iran has been bringing under assault, with no questions asked, Gulf states that are seen as allying with the US and Israel. West Asia is facing a compounded crisis and International Law seems to be helplessly silent.
Wittingly or unwittingly, matters at the heart of International Law and peace are being obfuscated by some pro-Trump administration commentators meanwhile. For example, retired US Navy Captain Brent Sadler has cited Article 51 of the UN Charter, which provides for the right to self or collective self-defence of UN member states in the face of armed attacks, as justifying the US sinking of the Iranian vessel (See page 2 of The Island of March 10, 2026). But the Article makes it clear that such measures could be resorted to by UN members only ‘ if an armed attack occurs’ against them and under no other circumstances. But no such thing happened in the incident in question and the US acted under a sheer threat perception.
Clearly, the US has violated the Article through its action and has once again demonstrated its tendency to arbitrarily use military might. The general drift of Sadler’s thinking is that in the face of pressing national priorities, obligations of a state under International Law could be side-stepped. This is a sure recipe for international anarchy because in such a policy environment states could pursue their national interests, irrespective of their merits, disregarding in the process their obligations towards the international community.
Moreover, Article 51 repeatedly reiterates the authority of the UN Security Council and the obligation of those states that act in self-defence to report to the Council and be guided by it. Sadler, therefore, could be said to have cited the Article very selectively, whereas, right along member states’ commitments to the UNSC are stressed.
However, it is beyond doubt that international anarchy has strengthened its grip over the world. While the US set destabilizing precedents after the crumbling of the Cold War that paved the way for the current anarchic situation, Russia further aggravated these degenerative trends through its invasion of Ukraine. Stepping back from anarchy has thus emerged as the prime challenge for the world community.
-
News6 days agoRepatriation of Iranian naval personnel Sri Lanka’s call: Washington
-
Features6 days agoWinds of Change:Geopolitics at the crossroads of South and Southeast Asia
-
News5 days agoProf. Dunusinghe warns Lanka at serious risk due to ME war
-
Sports4 days agoRoyal start favourites in historic Battle of the Blues
-
Sports3 days agoThe 147th Royal–Thomian and 175 Years of the School by the Sea
-
News3 days agoHistoric address by BASL President at the Supreme Court of India
-
Business7 days agoSeven decades of sartorial excellence: The legacy of Linton Master Tailors in Kandy
-
News4 days agoCEBEU warns of operational disruptions amid uncertainty over CEB restructuring

