CHIEF JUSTICE FILED ACTION AGAINST PSC REPORT FULL TEXT OF THE PETITION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA

In the matter of an application for mandates in the nature of writs of Certiorari and Prohibition under and in terms of Article 140 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka

HON. (DR.)
UPATISSA ATAPATTU BANDARANAYAKE WASALA MUDIYANSE
RALAHAMILAGE SHIRANI ANSHUMALA BANDARANAYAKE,

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka, Residence of the Chief Justice of Sri Lanka,
129, Wijerama Mawatha,
Colombo 07. PETITIONER Vs
1.
HON. CHAMAL RAJAPAKSE, Hon. Speaker of Parliament, Speakers Residence,
Sri Jayawardanepura Kotte.
2.
HON. ANURA PRIYADARSHANA YAPA, MP
Eeriyagolla,
Yakwila.
3.
HON. NIMAL SIRIPALA DE SILVA, MP
93/20, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 08.
4.
HON. A. D. SUSIL PREMAJAYANTHA, MP
123/1, Station Road,
Gangodawila, Nugegoda.
5.
HON. DR. RAJITHA SENARATNE, MP
CD 85, Gregory's Road, Colombo 07.

6.
HON. WIMAL WEERAWANSA, MP
18, Rodney Place,
Cotta Road, Colombo 08.
7.
HON. DILAN PERERA, MP
30, Bandaranayake Mawatha,
Badulla.
8.
HON. NEOMAL PERERA, MP
3/3, Rockwood Place, Colombo 07.
9.
HON. LAKSHMAN KIRIELLA, MP
121/1, Pahalawela Road,
Palawatta, Battaramulla.
10.
HON. JOHN AMARATUNGA, MP
88, Negombo Road,
Kandana.
11.
HON. RAJAVAROTHIAM SAMPATHAN, MP
2D, Summit Flats,
Keppitipola Road, Colombo 05.
12.
HON. VIJITHA HERATH, MP
44/3, Medawaththa Road, Mudungoda,
Miriswaththa, Gampaha.
All of the above Respondents also of the Parliament of Sri Lanka, Sri Jayawardanepura Kotte.
13.
W.B.D. DASSANAYAKE, Secretary General of Parliament, Parliament Secretariat, Parliament of Sri Lanka,
Sri Jayawardanepura Kotte

RESPONDENTS

TO: HIS LORDSHIP THE PRESIDENT AND OTHER HONOURABLE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA On this 19th   day of December 2012

The PETITION of the PETITIONER above-named appearing by Kandiah Neelakandan,

Asian Human Rights Commission |www.humanrights.asia

Sashidevi Neelakandan and Saravanan Neelakandan practising in partnership under the name style and firm of
NEELAKANDAN & NEELAKANDAN
and their Assistants Mohottige Don Raja Mannapperuma, Asurappuli Hewage Sumathipala,
Shehani Niranji Ratnaweerage, Mohamed Kaleel Mohamed Irshad, Gnanapragasam Pushpa



Angelin, Sriskandarajah Pratheepa and Pranavan Neelakandan, her Registered Attorneys, statesas follows:-1.The Petitioner is the 43 rd and the incumbent Chief Justice of Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. The Petitioner was appointed as a Judge of the Supreme Court ofSri Lanka in October 1996 and was appointed as the Chief Justice of Sri Lanka on 18 th May 2011.2.The 1 st Respondent is the Hon. Speaker of the Parliament of the Democratic SocialistRepublic of Sri Lanka.3.(a)The Petitioner states that:(a)the 2 nd Respondent is a Member of Parliament for the Kurunegala District representing the United People’s Freedom Alliance and a member of the Cabinet of Ministers holding the portfolio of Minister of Environment.(b)the 3 rd Respondent is a Member of Parliament for the Badulla District representing the United People’s Freedom Alliance and a member of the Cabinet of Ministers holding the portfolio of Minister of Irrigationand Water Resources Management and is the leader of the House of the Parliament. (c)the 4 th Respondent is a Member of Parliament for the ColomboDistrict representing the United People’s Freedom Alliance and a member of the Cabinet of Ministers holding the portfolio of Minister of Petroleum Industries.(d)the 5 th Respondent is a Member of Parliament for the Kalutara Districtrepresenting the United People’s Freedom Alliance and a member of the Cabinet of Ministers holding the portfolio of Minister  of  Fisheries  and  Aquatic  Resources  Development.(e)the  6  th  Respondent  is  a Member of Parliament for the ColomboDistrict representing the United People’s Freedom Alliance and a member of the Cabinet of Ministers holding the portfolio of Minister of Construction, Engineering Services, Housing and Common Amenities.(f)the 7 th Respondent is a Member of Parliament for the Badulla Districtrepresenting the United People’s Freedom Alliance and a member of the Cabinet of Ministers holding the portfolio of Minister of ForeignEmployment Promotion and Welfare.

(g)the 8 th Respondent is a Member of Parliament for the Puttlam Districtrepresenting the United People’s Freedom Alliance and the DeputyMinister of External Affairs.(h)the 9 th Respondent  is  a  Member  of  Parliament  for  the  Kandy  District  representing  the  United National Party. (i)the 10 th Respondent is a Member of Parliament for the Gampaha District representing the United National Party.(j)the 11 th Respondent is a Member of Parliament for the Trincomalee District representing the Illankai Tamil Arasu Kadchi. (k)the 12 th Respondent is a Member of Parliament for the Gampaha District representing the Democratic National Alliance. (b) The Petitioner states that the aforesaid 2 nd to 12 th Respondents were appointed bythe 1st Respondent to a Select Committee under a purported Standing Order
78Aof the Parliament to investigate into alleged acts of misconduct or incapacity of the
Petitioner, pursuant to a Resolution presented to the 1 st Respondent in terms of Article
107(2) of the Constitution as morefully set forth hereinafter. (c) The 3 rd Respondent was the
Chairman of the Select Committee purportedlyappointed by the 1 st Respondent in order to investigate purported charges againstthe Petitioner in order to impeach the Petitioner.(d) The Petitioner states that there is no provision in the Standing Orders of theParliament, for a Select Committee appointed under the purported Standing Order78A to continue functioning notwithstanding any vacancy created in such SelectCommittee. 4.The 13 th Respondent is the Secretary General of the Parliament and the Secretary to the purported Select Committee appointed under Standing Order 78A of the Parliament. 5.The Petitioner states that (a)the


Government of Sri Lanka addressed the attached periodic report to theHuman Rights Committee appointed under and in terms of the InternationalCovenant on Civil & Political Rights a treaty to which Sri Lanka is a signatory. Atrue copy of the said document is filed herewith marked P1 and pleaded as partand parcel hereof.(b)the Petitioner has been reliably informed that the said report was presented to thesaid Committee by a high profile delegation including the PermanentRepresentative to the UN Mr Prasad Kariyawasam, Dr. Rohan Perera, Ms.LalaniPerera and the then Solicitor General of Sri Lanka Mr. C R De Silva, President’sCounsel.

(c)the Petitioner states that the said document in Clauses 298, 299, 300, 301 and 302 dealt with Standing Order 78A, and more particularly Clause 302 states as follows:On the previous occasion the Human Rights Committee examined Sri Lanka’speriodic report, it express concern on the compatibility of the impeachment process with the scope and spirit of Article
14, since it would compromise theindependence of the judiciary. As stated above Article 107 a  judge  can  be  removed  only  on  “proved  grounds  of  misbehaviour  or  incapacity”  and
thestanding orders allows for the judge in question defend himself either on his own or
retaining  a  legal  counsel,  non  adherence  to  the  rules  of  natural  justiceby  the  inquiry committee would attract judicial review. Indeed nowhere eitherin the relevant constitutional provisions or the standing orders seek to excludejudicial scrutiny of the decisions of the inquiring committee. Thus, it is envisaged that if the inquiring committee were to misdirect itself in orbreached the rules of natural justice its decisions could be subject to judicial review.A true copy of the Standing Order 78A is filed herewith marked P1(a) andpleaded as part and parcel hereof.(d) in the circumstances the Government of Sri Lanka has represented that thedecisions of the Select Committee appointed under Standing Order 78A wouldattract judicial scrutiny. 6.The Petitioner further states that the Respondents are estopped from denying that thedecisions of the select committee  are subject to judicial review and are estopped from denying that the Respondents are bound by judgments of competent courts exercisingjudicial review of the decision of the Select Committee.B ACKGROUND F ACTS
7.The Petitioner states that(a)on or about 1 st November 2012, a Notice of a Resolution purportedly under Article107(2) of the Constitution signed by 117 Members of Parliament was handed overto the 1 st Respondent seeking inter alia the removal of the Petitioner on the allegedgrounds of misbehavior and/or incapacity. A true copy of the said resolution isfiled herewith marked P2 and pleaded as part and parcel hereof.(b)on or about 6 th November
2012, the 1 st Respondent caused the said Resolution tobe published in the Order Paper of the Parliament of Sri Lanka and announced that a Select Committee comprising of 11 Members of Parliament will be appointed toinvestigate into the purported allegations contained in the said Resolution. (c)pursuant to the nominations made by the respective constituent parties of the Parliament, the following 11 members were appointed by the 1 st Respondent to the said Select Committee on 14 th November 2012

(a)the 2 nd to 8 th Respondents representing the ruling United People’s Freedom Alliance; (b)the 9 th and 10 th Respondents representing the United National Party;(c)the 11 th Respondent representing the Illankai Tamil Arasu Kachchi;and(d)the 12 th Respondent representing the Democratic National Alliance. 8.The Petitioner states that(a)at about 7.00 p.m. on 14 th November 2012, the Petitioner received a letter dated 14 th November, 2012 under the hand of the 13 th Respondent informing the Petitioner of the aforesaid Notice of Resolution received by the 1 st Respondent, theappointment of the 2 nd to 12 th Respondents to the purported Select Committee on14 th November 2012 to try the said charges and report to the Parliament and themeeting of the said purported Select Committee on 14 th November
2012 and informing the Petitioner:(a)to submit the Statement of Defence to the said purported


charges contained in the Notice of Resolution on or before 22 nd November 2012;(b)to appear before the said purported Select Committee at 10.30 a.m. on 23 rd November 2012 either personally  or  by  representative.(b)the  said  letter  dated  14  th  November  2012  had  the purported charges included in theNotice of the Resolution as Attachment 1 and a copy of the Standing Order 78A asAttachment 2. A true copy of the said letter dated 14 th November
2012 togetherwith the said attachments are filed herewith marked P3 and pleaded as part andparcel hereof.9.The Petitioner states that the Petitioner appointed Messrs Neelakandan &
Neelakandan asthe Instructing Attorneys for the Petitioner and on the instructions of the
Petitioner, thesaid Messrs Neelakandan & Neelakandan, without prejudice to the rights of the
Petitionerincluding the right to object to the jurisdiction of the Select Committee, wrote to the
13 th Respondent on 15 th November, 2012, drawing attention to the fact that the Petitioner has  only been  given  approximately a  week’s time  to  answer the purported charges  and
considering that there are fourteen purported charges, requesting six weeks time in order to enable the Petitioner to answer the said purported charges. A true copy of theaforesaid letter is
filed herewith marked P4 and pleaded as part and parcel hereof.10.The Petitioner states by letter dated 16 th November, 2012 the Petitioner requested the 13 th Respondent to respond to
the letter of Messrs Neelakandan & Neelakandan, nominated asthe registered Attorneys of the
Petitioner. A true copy of this letter is filed herewithmarked P5 and pleaded as part and parcel hereof.11.Pursuant thereto on 17 th November 2012, the Petitioner personally wrote to the 13
th Respondent informing that the Petitioner received the letter dated 14 th November 2012
of13 th Respondent only around 7 p.m. on 14 th November 2012 allocating the Petitioner
onlyapproximately week’s time to answer 14 purported charges and in the circumstancesrequesting six weeks time be granted in order to enable the Petitioner to answer the 14purported charges. The Petitioner further requested 13 th Respondent to respond to the

letters and grant the time requested. A true copy of this letter is filed herewith markedP6 and pleaded as part and parcel hereof.12.The Petitioner states that pursuant thereto the Petitioner received a letter dated 17 th November 2012 from 13 th Respondent informing the Petitioner that the Select Committeehas ordered 13 th Respondent to inform the Petitioner that -(a)the Petitioner must personally inform the Select Committee whether the Petitioneris appearing personally or by representative;(b)if there is any request the Petitioner can forward such request  after  appearing  before  the  Select  Committee  at  10.30  a.m.  on  23  rd  November
2012;(c)the Select Committee has decided not to accept the letter dated 15 th November2012 sent by Messrs Neelakandan & Neelakandan A true copy of the said letter dated 17 th
November 2012 is filed herewith marked P7 andpleaded as part and parcel hereof.13.The 13
th  Respondent  further  by  letter  dated  19  th  November,  2012  informed  the  Petitioner,to forward any request after appearing before the Select Committee at 10.30 a.m. on 23 rd
November 2012. A true copy of which is filed herewith marked P8 and pleaded as partand
parcel hereof.T HE P ETITIONER NOT AFFORDED SUFFICIENT TIME TO RESPOND TO THE PURPORTEDCHARGES OR TO PREPARE HER DEFENCE 14.The Petitioner states that the purported Select Committee comprising of 2 nd to 12 th Respondents, as communicated by the letter of the 13 th Respondent of 14 th November2012, received by the Petitioner approximately at 7.00 p.m. on 14 th November 2012,arbitrarily and unreasonably only allowed the Petitioner time till 22 nd November 2012 torespond to 14 purported charges.15.The Petitioner states that all of the said 14 purported charges contained several factualmatters on which the Petitioner had to instruct her lawyers for the preparation of theStatement of Defence and the approximate week’s time allowed was grosslyunreasonable and arbitrary.16.The Petitioner states that repeated requests made by the Petitioner personally and throughher lawyers for a reasonable extension time was arbitrarily disregarded by the purportedSelect  Committee,  who  required  the  Petitioner  to  appear  before  the  Select


Committee on 23 rd November 2012 and make the request personally.17.The Petitioner states that in view of no proper procedure laid down for proceedingsbefore the purported Select Committee, the Petitioner faced the risk of not havingpresented a defence in the event the 2 nd to 12 th Respondents refused the request of thePetitioner for further time and in the circumstances through abundance of caution the Petitioner was compelled to send a limited response to the purported charges. True copy

of the said limited response dated 20 th November 2012 is filed herewith marked P9 andpleaded as part and parcel hereof.18.The Petitioner states that on the 23 rd of November,
2012 the Petitioner appeared beforethe purported Select Committee and requested for further
time and was given only a further week’s time despite strong objection of her lawyers who steadfastly maintainedthat one week’s time was not sufficient and that it was impossible to
respond within suchperiod.19.The Petitioner states that the Petitioner only requested a reasonable time to adequatelyand fully answer the purported charges demonstrating that there
was no factual or legal basis for the maintenance of the said purported charges and the farcical nature thereof. In the circumstances, the Attorneys-at-Law for the Petitioner sent another
letter dated 29 th November 2012 requesting further time. A true copy of the same is filed herewithmarked P9(a) and pleaded as part and parcel hereof.20.The Petitioner states that on 4
th December, 2012, which was the next date of inquiry, therequest of the Petitioner for further time was refused by the 2 nd Respondent. 21.The Petitioner states that pursuant thereto on 6 th  December  2012,  which  was  the  next  dateat  about  4  p.m.  during  the  course  of  the
proceedings of the purported Select Committee, abundle of (over 80) documents which contained over 1,000 pages was handed over to theCounsel of the Petitioner. The Petitioner
states that the request of the Counsel for the Petitioner for a reasonable time to study the said documents and prepare for the inquirywas wrongfully, unlawfully and arbitrarily refused by the 2 nd to 8 th Respondents and the Petitioner was informed that the inquiry into the charges
1 and 2 would be taken up forinquiry on the next day, namely 7 th December, 2012 at 1.30 p.m. True copies of the proceedings of 23 rd November 2012, 4 th December 2012, 6 th
December 2012 and 7 th December 2012 and the aforesaid documents handed over to the Petitioner are markedP10(a), P10(b), P10(c), P10(d) and P11 respectively and are filed and pleaded as partand parcel of this petition.22.The Petitioner states that in the circumstances, the
Petitioner was not given sufficienttime to prepare her defence and that the 2 nd to 8 th
Respondents acted wrongfully, unlawfully and arbitrarily and in breach of the principles of natural justice. B IAS 23.The Petitioner states that Hon. Dr. Rajitha Senaratne (the 5 th
Respondent) and Hon. Wimal Weerawansa (the 6 th Respondent) were apparently biased
against the Petitioner and therefore the Petitioner in her limited Response objected to the said
5 th and 6 th Respondents sitting in the Select Committee.Hon. Rajitha Senaratne (the 5 th Respondent) 24.The Petitioner states that (a)on or about 26/08/2011, Dr. Sujatha Senaratne, the  spouse  of  the  5  th  Respondent,instituted  a  Fundamental  Rights  Application  in  the Supreme Court bearing No. SCFR 357/2011;

(b)after hearing the parties, the said application of Dr. Sujatha Senaratne was dismissed on 26 th March 2012 by a bench of the Supreme Court presided by thePetitioner. True copy of the said proceedings in SCFR 357/2011 is filed herewith marked P12 andpleaded as part and parcel hereof.25.The Petitioner states that during the proceedings of the Select Committee there wasapparent bias on the part of the 5 th Respondent and consequently the Counsel for the Petitioner during the proceedings of 4 th December 2012 vehemently objected to the 5 th Respondent taking part in the Select Committee proceedings. 26.The Petitioner states that after such submissions were made by the Counsel on behalf ofthe Petitioner, the 5 th Respondent made the following observations which are set out in summary, during the course

of the proceedings(a)the Petitioner has heard another case when the 5 th Respondent was the Minister of Lands and held that case also against the 5 th Respondent;(b)the 5 th Respondent as a Member of Parliament objected to the appointment of the Petitioner as a Judge of the Supreme Court;(c)the 5 th Respondent criticized not only the appointment of the Petitioner but alsothe person who backed her – the Hon. (Prof.) G.L. Peiris;(d)the 5 th Respondent reminded Hon. (Prof.) G.L. Peiris at the Parliamentary Groupmeeting about the criticism;27.The Petitioner states that in the circumstances the 5 th Respondent was clearly and patentlybiased against the Petitioner.Hon. Wimal Weerawansa (the 6 th Respondent)
28.The Petitioner states that the Petitioner objected to the 6 th Respondent on the ground of bias as set out in her limited statement of defence and also during the proceedings of theSelect
Committee there was apparent bias also on the part of the 6 th Respondent andconsequently
the Counsel for the Petitioner during the proceedings of 4 th December 2012 objected to the 6 th Respondent taking part in the Select Committee proceedings. 29.The Petitioner states that the 6 th Respondent has made statements in the media thatunequivocally demonstrate that the
6 th Respondent is clearly predisposed towards an adverse finding against the Petitioner including(a)report in the Sri Lanka Mirror citing the 6 th Respondent as stating that theimpeachment motion was brought against the Petitioner in order to end a clashbetween the executive and the legislature, which clash was precipitated by theSupreme Court communicating a Determination of the Court to the 13 th Respondent, the Secretary General of Parliament, instead of the 1 st Respondent and the said allegation forms part and parcel of the charges against the Petitioner.

(b)an interview given to the Rivira newspaper, wherein the 6 th Respondent indicatesthat the executive would have to take steps to neutralize a perceived conflict between the judiciary and the executive.(c)media reports that the 6 th Respondent and/or the political party of the 6 th Respondent has delayed preferring an application to the Supreme Courtchallenging the 13 th  Amendment  in  view  of  the  pending  impeachment  motion  True  copies  of  the  said newspaper reports are filed herewith collectively marked P13and pleaded as part and parcel hereof.30.In the circumstances Hon. Wimal Weerawansa was clearly and patently biased againstthe  Petitioner.31.The  Petitioner  states  that  on  6  th  December  2012,  the  2  nd Respondent informed thePetitioner that the Committee is not accepting the objection against the 5 th and 6 th Respondents on the grounds of bias, without giving any reasons for the said decision. The Petitioner states that though the 2 nd Respondent indicated that he would be giving thereasons for the decision subsequently, no reasons have been given to the Petitioner for thesaid decision thus far. 32.The Petitioner further states that the 9 th to 12 th Respondents expressly states that theywere not consulted regarding the said decision and in the circumstances it is apparent thatthe 2 nd to 8 th Respondents have on their own made the said decision disregarding and without consulting the 9 th to 12 th Respondents who are members of the purported Select Committee. N O PROCEDURE LAID DOWN 33.The Petitioner states that the Petitioner was not informed of the procedure intended to be followed by the Select Committee despite repeated requests of the Counsel for thePetitioner.34.The Petitioner states that the 2 nd to 8 th Respondent, without consulting or the concurrence of the 9 th to 12 th Respondents, were adopting ad hoc and arbitrary procedure unknown to law with regard to (a)the production and admission of the documents; (b)proof of such documents; (c)burden of proof; (d)lists of witnesses ;(e)admission of evidence etc.35.The Petitioner states that the 2 nd to 8 th Respondents were consistently taking decisions without even consulting the 9 th to 12 th Respondents who were also members of thepurported Select Committee and the said 9 th to
12 th Respondents were openly critical ofsuch behavior of 2 nd to 8 th Respondents.
N O L IST OF W ITNESSES 36.The Petitioner states that (a)the lawyers representing the
Petitioner repeatedly requested the purported Select Committee for a list of witnesses and


documents for the Petitioner to prepare forthe examination of such witnesses and but were not given. (b)despite such repeated requests the list of witnesses was not provided to thePetitioner and as far as the Petitioner gathered from the proceedings the 9 th to 12 th Respondent were also unaware as to whether any witnesses were being called togive evidence.(c)during the course of the proceedings of the purported Select Committee on 6 th December 2012, at about
4 p.m., a bundle of (over 80) documents which containedover 1000 pages was handed over to the Counsel of the Petitioner and despite the request of the Counsel for the Petitioner for a
reasonable time to study the saiddocuments and prepare for the inquiry, the Petitioner was
informed that theinquiry into the charges 1 and 2 would be taken up for inquiry on the very nextdate, namely 7 th December, 2012 at 1.30 p.m.(d)the Petitioner was further informed that
there would be no oral testimony inrespect of the above documents and despite the objection
of the Counsel for the Petitioner that documents has to be produced through witnesses and from propercustody the said submission was disregarded by the 2 nd to 8 th Respondents.B URDEN OF P ROOF 37.The Petitioner states that the Petitioner was not given the right or the opportunity of cross examining the accusers or any of the witnesses by producing the documents through the13 th Respondent.38.The Petitioner further states that the 2 nd to 8 th Respondents in clear violation of Article13(5) of the Constitution informed the Petitioner citing Standing Order 78A(5) that the burden of disproving was on the Petitioner.R EQUEST FOR P UBLIC H EARING 39.The Petitioner states that the Counsel for the Petitioner in view of the ad hoc and arbitrarymanner in which the 2 nd to 8 th Respondent were conducting the proceedings  of  thepurported  Select  Committee  requested  a  public  hearing,  waiving  the secrecy provision contained in Standing Order 78A(8) drawing the attention to the fact that the said provision is so included to protect the Respondent Judge.40.The Petitioner states that the said request of the Petitioner was refused by the 2 nd Respondent.

41.(a)The Petitioner then requested that there should be observers present at the inquiryand that the presence of the observers will not violate the secrecy provision. (b)The Petitioner further submitted that the Select Committee could use its discretionin deciding who the observers should be and suggested that the observers shouldinclude inter alia the Bar Association of Sri Lanka and the International BarAssociation.42.The Petitioner states that the said request for observers was also refused by the 2 nd Respondent.43.The Petitioner states that it was important that the proceedings be open to the public sothat the public and interested parties will be able to gauge or determine the manner and procedure followed.D ECISIONS TAKEN BY THE C HAIRMAN ( THE 2 ND R ESPONDENT )44.The Petitioner states  that  decisions  were  taken  by  the  2  nd  Respondent  sometimes  withoutproper consultation  and  in  some  instances  without the knowledge  of the members of  theSelect Committee, especially the 9 th to 12 th Respondents.45.The Petitioner further states that the Chairman has instructed the 13 th Respondent to call for documents which instructions have been made without the knowledge of all the members of the Select Committee.46.The Petitioner pleads that in the circumstances the procedure followed is unlawful,unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious.T HE P ETITIONER WAS INSULTED 47.The Petitioner states that the Petitioner was insulted by several Government members ofthe PSC, and the Petitioner files herewith a true copy of the letter dated 14/12/2012 sentby her lawyers to the Hon. Speaker marked P14 and pleads as part and parcel hereof.48.The Petitioner pleads that the statements  made  by  the  Government  members  of  the  PSC  were  clearly  actuated  by  a prejudged  mind  and  were  clearly  manifested  such  prejudgedstate  by  the  conduct  and utterances made.W ALK OUT BY THE P ETITIONER 49.The Petitioner states that –(a)117 members who signed the impeachment motion come under the jurisdiction ofthe government whip;(b)2  nd  to  8  th  Respondents  who  constituted  a  majority  of  the  Select  Committee


comeunder the government whip ;(c)the government whip is a member of the cabinet which is under His Excellencythe President to whom the motion for impeachment would be submitted;

(d)majority of the Members of the Parliament come under the government whip.50.The Petitioner states that the 2 nd to 8 th Respondents were conducting the proceedings of the purported Select Committee in an unreasonable, unlawful, ad hoc, manifestly unfairand an arbitrary manner in beach of the principles of natural justice. 51.The Petitioner states that it was apparent that the 2 nd to 8 th Respondents had prejudged thecase and were in a hurry to find the Petitioner guilty. 52.The Petitioner states that it became apparent that the Petitioner would not receive justicein the Select Committee and in the circumstances set out above the Petitioner and herlawyers walked out of the proceedings of the purported Select Committee on 6 th December 2012 at approximately 5.50 p.m.A FTER THE WALK OUT  53.The Petitioners Attorneys at Law sent a letter dated 7 th December 2012 to the 1 st Respondent inter-alia, requesting that further action be deferred until an independent andimpartial panel is appointed to inquire into the allegations. The Petitioner further reiterated that the Petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations and is convinced that the Petitioner will be exonerated of any wrongdoing by an independent and impartialtribunal. A true copy of the same is filed herewith marked P15 and pleaded as part andparcel hereof.54.The Petitioner states that the Petitioner is made aware that the purported SelectCommittee has met as scheduled at 1.30 p.m. on 7 th December, 2012 and that at the said meeting the 9 th to 12 th Respondents have stated  tabling  a  letter  to the  Select  Committeethat(a)the  Petitioner  was  not  afforded  the courtesies and privileges due to the office of Chief Justice;(b)it is the duty of the Select Committee to maintain the highest standards of fairnessin conducting the inquiry;(c)the treatment meted out to the Petitioner was insulting and intimidatory and the remarks made were very clearly indicative of preconceived findings of guilt(d)the 9 th to 12 th Respondents are of the view that the Committee should beforeproceeding any further lay down the procedure the Committee intends to follow inthis inquiry;(e)give adequate time for the Petitioner and her lawyers to study and review the documents tabled(f)afford the Petitioner privileges necessary to uphold the dignity of the office of Chief Justice 55.The Petitioner states that the Petitioner learnt from newspaper reports that pursuantthereto the 9 th to 12 th Respondents have withdrawn from the Select Committee due to the refusal of the 2 nd to 8 th Respondents to accede to the aforesaid request made by the 9 th to

12 th Respondents. A true copy of the press statement issued by the Opposition membersis filed herewith marked P16 and pleaded as part and parcel hereof.56.The Petitioner states that after the Petitioner walked out of the proceedings, and after the withdrawal of the 9 th to 12 th Respondents from the proceedings, the 2 nd to 8 th Respondents in an about face hurriedly summoned and examined 16 witnesses during thecourse of 7 th December 2012 sitting till
8.50 p.m. 57.The Petitioner states that upon the withdrawal of the 9 th to 12 th Respondents, four vacancies are created in the purported Select Committee appointed by the 1 st Respondentand in the circumstances the said purported Select Committee became functus officio. The Petitioner reiterates that there is no provision in the Standing Orders of theParliament for a purported Select Committee appointed under Standing Order 78A tocontinue functioning notwithstanding any vacancy created in such Committee.58.The Petitioner states that notwithstanding the vacancy created by the withdrawal of the9 th to 12 th Respondents as aforesaid the 2 nd to 8 th Respondents wrongfully, unlawfullycontinued to function ultra vires of the Standing Orders of the Parliament.C ALLING OF W ITNESSES BY THE 2 ND TO 8 TH R ESPONDENTS 59.The Petitioner states that the Petitioner was not informed of any decision by the purportedSelect Committee to call any witnesses during the proceedings of 6 th December 2012 until the withdrawal of the Petitioner from the said

proceedings at approximately 5.50p.m. The Petitioner states that despite the repeated requests of  the  Counsel  for  the  Petitioner,  even  on  6  th  December  2012,  the  purported  Select Committee or the 2 nd to 8 th Respondents did not inform the Petitioner that the Select Committee  was  calling  anywitnesses  on  7  th  December  2012  and  did  not  provide  the Petitioner with a list ofwitnesses. The Petitioner states that the Petitioner was in fact specifically informed thatno witnesses would be called by the purported Select Committee since all evidence are documentary and that the burden was on the Petitioner to disprove the charges by callingwitnesses. 60.The Petitioner verily believes that 9 th to 12 th Respondents were unaware of any suchdecision by the 2 nd to 8 th Respondents to call witnesses prior to their withdrawal from the proceedings on 7 th December 2012 despite being members of the said purported Select Committee.61.In fact, the Petitioner verily believes that these witnesses were summoned at the eleventh hour knowing well that they will not be cross-examined, because the Petitioner had walked out of the proceedings. 62.The Petitioner states that on 8 th December 2012 the 2 nd to 8 th Respondents have compiled a purported report wrongfully, unlawfully and unconstitutionally finding the Petitionerguilty of charges 1, 4 and 5. A true copy of the said Purported Report is filed herewithmarked P17 and pleaded as part and parcel hereof. The Report was available only on the 17/12/2012 in the afternoon. The Petitioner specifically pleads that the Petitioner was notgiven what was called the minutes of the tribunal and /or the deliberations of theCommittee at any given time while the Petitioner was participating at the inquiry.

63.The Petitioner states that the said purported finding of guilt of the Petitioner by the 2 nd to8  th  Respondents  of  charges  1,  4  and  5  is  wrongful,  unlawful,  against the  weight  of theevidence and without any legal or factual basis.64.The petitioner states in her response she asked for details/particulars of the several charges which the Respondents refused to give.C HARGE N UMBER 165.The Petitioner states that the Charge No. 1 against the Petitioner reads  as  follows;“Whereas  by  purchasing,  in  the  names  of  two  individuals, i.e.  Renuka NiranjaliBandaranayake   and   Kapila   Ranjan   Karunaratne   using   special   power   of attorneylicence  bearing  No.  823  of  Public  Notary  K.B.  Aroshi  Perera  that  was  given byRenuka Niranjali Bandaranayake and Kapila Ranjan Karunaratne residing at No. 127, Ejina Street, Mount Hawthorn, Western Australia, 6016, Australia, the housebearing No. 2C/F2/P4 and assessment No. 153/1-2/4 from the housing scheme located at No. 153, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo 08 belonging to the company thatwas known as Ceylinco Housing and Property Company and City Housing and Real Estate Company Limited and Ceylinco Condominium Limited and is currently knownas Trillium Residencies which is referred in the list of property in the case offundamental rights application No. 262/2009, having removed another bench of theSupreme Court which was hearing the fundamental rights application cases bearingNos. 262/2009, 191/2009 and 317/2009 filed respectively in the Supreme Court against  Ceylinco  Sri  Ram  Capital  Management,  Golden  Key  Credit  Card  Companyand Finance and Guarantee Company Limited belonging to the Ceylinco Group ofCompanies and taking up further hearing of the aforesaid cases under her court andserving as the presiding judge of the benches hearing the said cases” 66.The Petitioner states that:(a)(i)the aforesaid housing unit bearing No. 2C/F2/P4 and assessment No. 153/1-2/4 Trillium Residencies was not purchased by the Petitioner and/or using the special power of attorney bearing No. 823 of Public Notary K.B. Aroshi Perera;(ii)the said property was purchased by Renuka Niranjali Bandaranayake and Kapila Ranjan Karunaratne by the monies remitted by Renuka NiranjaliBandaranayake and Kapila Ranjan Karunaratne from Australia.The Petitioner files herewith  the  documentation  from the  bank  in  evidence  thereofmarked  P17(c)  to  P17(o) respectively and pleads as part and parcel hereof.(b)(i)as far back as 6 th May 2010, (i.e. nearly 16 months prior to the Petitioner hearing the case) the sale of housing units of the


Trillium Residencies had been excluded from the Fundamental Rights Application bearing
No. 262/2009.

The Petitioner sets out hereunder an extract of the proceedings of 6 th May2010 which reads as follows-“ The Court also directs the Committee of Chartered Accountants topursue all negotiations for the sale of other properties by advertising and calling for quotations with a view to obtaining the highest goingprices on these properties.No properties to be alienated without the express permission of this Court. For the moment, …the properties to bedisposed would be:-(1) pioneer tower (head office building)(2) trillium residencies (sale of housing units)(3) celestial residencies…”(ii)no permission of Court has been sought in relation to sale of the saidhousing units of Trillium Residencies after 6 th May 2010, despite a number of such housing units of Trillium Residencies being sold.(c) the  Petitioner  did not remove another  bench  that  was  hearing  the  Fundamental  Rights  Application  cases  bearing  Nos.
262/2009, 191/2009 and 317/2009..67.(a)The Petitioner states that by Deed No.2876 dated
12/05/2012 attested by D.A.P.Weeratne Notary Public, an apartment of Trillium Residencies bearing No.1C/F7/P4 was transferred to the former Chief Justice J.A.N. De Silva and his daughter R.K.I. de Silva Balapatabendi.(b)The Petitioner states that to the best of her knowledge no permission was sought,obtained or required for the transfer of the said premises.68.In the circumstances the Petitioner states that it was known and accepted that after theaforesaid order and the other orders made by a Bench presided by Justice ShiraneeTilakawardane no permission of the Supreme Court was necessary for the transfer of thesaid property (Trillium apartments).69.In the circumstances the Petitioner states that as at the date the case came  before a  benchof  which she  presided all apartments in Trillium Residencies could be transferred without the permission of the Supreme Court.70.In the circumstances, the Petitioner states that being guilty of the charge is ex faciewrong.71.The Petitioner states that her sister did not receive any special concession. The concessions of purchase price may have been offered and taken by several of the purchasers and no special concessions offered to the Petitioner’s sister.72.The Petitioner states for the aforesaid reasons finding of guilt against her cannot besustained.73.Without prejudice to the aforesaid the Petitioner states that herewith the following.74.The Petitioner states that(a)a motion was filed by adepositor /intervenient –petitioner in SCFR 191/2009 on orabout 19/08/2011 asking that a bench of 5 Judges be constituted;

(b)when the matter was referred to Justice Shiranee Tilakawardane, Justice Shiranee Tilakawardane referred the same to the Petitioner;(c)in the circumstances , the Petitioner referred it back to the same benchvthat heardthe case , thereafter the matter was never referred to the Petitioner forconsideration of whether a Bench of five Judges should be constituted(d)that Justice Shiranee Tilakawardane did not refer the matter to the Petitioner for a constitution of a Bench of five Judges and there was no such minute in the file.(e)In the circumstances the constitution of the Bench of five Judges never came upbefore the Petitioner.(f)In the circumstances the order of the Select Committee is ex facie wrong.75.The Petitioner states further in answer to the said charge without prejudice to theaforesaid.76.The Petitioner   states   that   –(a)there   were   several   allegations   against   Justice   Shiranee Tilakawardane which is notrelevant to be repeated here.(b)Judges refused to sit with Justice Tilakawardane in this matter as is evidenced bythe evidence of Justice Tilakawardane.(c)further allegations were made that Justice Tilakawardane met with some membersof the Watawala Commission alone in her chambers without any of the otherJudges and/or any counsel and that neither counsel nor other Judges were aware ofthe discussion.(d)The  Petitioner further states  that the Watawala  Commission had  been  paid approximately Rs.40 million allegedly for work done. This money was in factmeant for
repayment to depositors.77.In the aforesaid circumstances the Petitioner having considered all the facts and circumstances and after having consulted senior Judges of the Supreme Court, constituteda Bench chaired by her with two other senior judges to hear and determine the case.78.The Petitioner pleads that at no time did any person protest that the case was taken out ofJustice Tilakawardane and or heard by her. 79.The Petitioner states (a)that case came up on several occasions. (b)Several hundred depositors were present in court (c)most if not all depositors were represented by Counsel. (d)The Respondents were represented by counsel,(e)the Watawala Commissioners were present in court, (f)the Hon. Attorney General was represented. (g)None of such persons ever protested that the case was either wrongfullytaken and/or that it should not be heard by the Petitioner.

80.In the circumstances, the Petitioner states that it is not only wrongful but also maliciousto conclude that the Petitioner wrongfully took over the case.81.In any event the Petitioner states that to the best of the Petitioner’s recollection a Benchpresided by the Petitioner did not alter in any way the orders previously made.82.The Petitioner further states that the Petitioner did not make any order except purelyroutine orders in the said case.83.In these circumstances the Petitioner states that the taking of the case was not only notwrongful but correct and in any event did not in any way or manner affect the purchaseof the premises by her sister.84.The Petitioner states that in the aforesaid circumstances, the alleged finding of the 2 nd to8 th Respondents that the Petitioner is guilty of the aforesaid Charge 1 is wrongful, unlawful, arbitrary, against the weight of the evidence and without any legal or factualbasis.C HARGE N UMBER 485.The Petitioner states that Charge No. 4 against the Petitioner reads as follows;“Whereas,  by  not  declaring  in  the  annual  declaration  of  assets  and  liabilities thatshould be submitted by a judicial officer the details of more than twenty bankaccounts maintained  in  various  banks  including  nine  accounts  bearing  numbers106450013024,
101000046737,        100002001360,        100001014772,        100002001967,100101001275,
100110000338, 100121001797 and 100124000238 in the aforesaid branch of NDB Bank”86.The Petitioner states that the 13 th Respondent wrote to almost all commercial banksinquiring about the Petitioner’s Accounts and the evidence revals that the Petitioner from 2010 had no operative accounts in any other bank except the NDB Bank.87.In the circumstances the charge that the Petitioner had accounts in various banks isincorrect.88.Furthermore the evidence reveal that as at 31 st March 2012 the Petitioner had only 4active/operative accounts and that the NDB Bank had maintained 2 routing accounts as per the standard internal banking practice at the NDB Bank in the name of the Petitioneras morefully explained hereinafter. 89.The purported Report does not set out how many Bank accounts the Petitioner had. ThePetitioner sets out hereinunder from paragraph 92 onwards the accounts mentioned in the charge.90.The Petitioner sets out hereinunder the bank account dealt in the report.91.In the circumstances it is apparent that the Petitioner has made true and correctdeclaration of assets and liabilities.

92.The Petitioner states that of the accounts referred to in the above Charge No. 4:(a)Account No. 106450013024 was opened on or about 6th April 2011 with NationalDevelopment Bank PLC (NDB Bank) and has been duly declared in the relevantdeclaration of Assets and Liabilities dated 31 st March 2012.(b)Account No. 101000046737 had been duly declared in the  relevant  declaration  of  Assets  and  Liabilities  of  the  Petitioner.  (c)Account  No.
100002001360 is a Special Current Account created by NDB Bank for the purpose of routing investments. (d)Account No. 100001014772 is an old Account No. which has been migrated dueto a IT System change by NDB Bank to Account No. 10100046737 referred toabove. (e)Account No. 100002001967 is a Special Current Account created by NDB Bank PLC for the purpose of routing investments. (f)Account No. 100101001275 had been closed by the

Petitioner in the year 2008.(g)Account No. 100110000338 is an old Account No. which has been migrated dueto a IT System change by NDB Bank to Account No. 106160005893 referred toabove and has been duly declared by the Petitioner. (h)Account No. 100121001797 is an old Account No. which has been migrated byNDB Bank to Account No. 106450000542 and has been declared by thePetitioner. (i)Account No. 100124000238 is an old Account No. which has been migrated byNDB Bank to Account No. 106450013024 referred to above and has been declared by the Petitioner.93.The Petitioner states that of the 9 accounts referred to in the Charge No. 4, (a)there is in truth and in fact only 7 accounts whilst the other 2 accounts are old account numbers of 2 of the Accounts migrated due to a IT System change byNDB Bank. (b)of the said 7 accounts, 2 are special routing accounts (as opposed to regular current accounts) maintained by the NDB Bank for investment purposes in termsof standard internal banking practice at the NDB Bank and these are not regular current accounts. These routing accounts could be operated only by the NDB Bank as and when necessary. When the investments mature the funds will be credited along with the interest and thereafter the capital and the interest will be re-invested by the Bank as per the standing instructions of the customer based onthe financial advice given by the NDB Bank with regard to the investment. The Petitioner verily believes the funds in the account are credited to the account at the end of an investment cycle when the matured investment is credited pendingreinvestment and during the maturity period of the investment these routing accounts carry zero balances. (c)1 other account bearing No. 1001011001275 has been closed in 2008.

(d)thus only 4 of the 9 Accounts referred to in the said Charge 4, were regular operational Accounts and the Petitioner has duly declared the said Accounts in therelevant Asset Declarations. 94.The Petitioner states that, in the aforesaid purported Report of the 2 nd to 8 th Respondentsthe 2 nd to 8 th Respondent have referred to the following accounts though some of themwere not included in the said Charge 4. The said Accounts are:Account No.
1Account No. 100002001360 is a Special Current Account created by NDB Bank PLC for the purpose  of routing investments.  The  said  Account has  been  migrated  by NDB Bank to Account No. 10111002058. (Account No. 7 referred to below)Account No. 2Account No.
100002001967 is a Special Current Account created by NDB Bank PLC for the purpose of routing investments. The said Account has been migrated by NDB Bank to Account No.
10110002778. Account No. 3Account No. 100121001797 has been migrated by NDB Bank to
Account No.106450000542. This account is an account in US Dollars which was opened on 2 nd September 2008 and the money was transferred to a fixed deposit in 2009. The fixed
deposit was duly declared in the declaration of Assets and Liabilities. Thisaccount had zero
balance from 2009. Account No. 4Account No. 106110012694 was opened on 26 th April
2012 and thus could nothave been declared in any of the declaration of assets and liabilities. Account No. 5Account No. 106110012128 was opened on 20 th April 2012 and thus could nothave  been  declared  in  any  of  the  declaration  of  assets  and  liabilities.  Account  No.
6Account No. 100124000238 has been migrated by NDB Bank to Account No.106450013024 was opened on 6 th April 2011 and was declared in the declarationof Assets and Liabilities as
at 31 st March 2012. The said Account could not havebeen declared in the declaration of as at
31  st  March  2011  because  it  was  opened  inApril  2011.  Account  No.  7Account  No.
1001110002058 is the migrated Account No. 100002001360 referred to under Account No. 1 above.  Account  No.  8Account  No.  100100039660  has  been  migrated  by  NDB  Bank  to Account No.106000134433 and has been duly declared in the Declarations of Assets andLiabilities for the years ending 31 st March 2010, 2011 and 2012. As is evidentfrom the Report itself and should have been evident to anyone who read the reportthat the transactions in the said Account commenced in November 2009 and thuscould not have been declared in years ending 31 st March 2007 or 2008.


95.The Petitioner states that of the 8 accounts referred to above(a)Account No. 7 is the new Account Number of the migrated and redundant oldaccount referred to under Account No. 1. (b)Accounts 1, 2 and 7 are special routing accounts ( 1 and 7 being the same) maintained by the NDB Bank for investment purposes as per standard internal banking practice of the NDB Bank as morefully described above. The said Accounts do not form part of the Assets or liabilities of the Petitioner as the said Accounts maintained by the NDB Bank as per internal banking practice. ThePetitioner states that the Petitioner has duly declared the Investment Assets relating to such routing accounts in the relevant Asset Declarations under the category of ‘Treasury Bills’. (c)Accounts 4 and 5 were opened in the year 2012 and therefore could not have beendisclosed in any Asset Declaration. (d)Accounts 3, 6 and 8 have been duly declared in the relevant Asset Declarations. 96.The Petitioner categorically states that the evidence reveal that the Petitioner hasdisclosed all her assets and liabilities and the said evidence does not  disclose  any  asset  and/or  liability  not  declared  by  the  Petitioner  in  the  relevant Declarations of Assets and Liabilities of the Petitioner.97.The Petitioner states that the 2 nd to
8 th Respondents have wrongfully concluded that thePetitioner had not disclosed the routing accounts  maintained  by  NDB  Bank  withoutproperly  understanding  the  nature  of  such
accounts. The Petitioner reiterates that the Petitioner has duly declared the Investment Assets
relating to such routing accounts in the relevant Asset Declarations. 98.The Petitioner further states that the 2 nd to 8 th Respondents have wrongfully concludedthat the Petitioner has not disclosed Accounts 4, 5, and 8 referred to in the purported Report which were not in operation by reason that the Petitioner has only opened suchaccounts after such relevant date of disclosure in the respective years. The Petitionerannexes hereto marked P18 the letter dated
19 th November 2012 addressed to Messrs Neelakandan & Neelakandan by NDB Bank setting out the details of bank accounts held by the Petitioner.99.The Petitioner states that in the  circumstances the  evidence  cogently establish  that  the  Petitioner  has  duly,  properly, truthfully and correctly disclosed all assets and liabilities as at the end of each reporting period as required by law. 100. The Petitioner states that the purported report of the 2 nd to 8 th Respondents has:(a)failed to consider that the evidence reveal that(i)the Petitioner, in fact had only Six (6) bank accounts with NDB Bankincluding 2 accounts opened after 31 st March
2012.(ii)the Petitioner did not have and/or maintain 20 bank accounts.

22 (iii) the Petitioner has not had any operative accounts in any bank other than theNDB Bank since  2010.(b)wrongfully concluded that the  evidence that(i)the Petitioner  maintained  13 accounts with NDB Bank.(ii)the Petitioner has not disclosed all operative bank accounts of the Petitionerin the relevant Declarations of Assets and Liabilities of the Petitioner.101. In the circumstances, the Petitioner states that(a)the said Charge 4 annexed to document marked P3 has not been duly proved. (b)the Petitioner is ex facie not guilty of Charge 4 annexed to document marked P3. 102. In the said circumstances the alleged finding of the 2 nd to 8 th Respondents  that  thePetitioner  is  guilty  of  the  aforesaid  charge  is  wrongful,  unlawful, arbitrary and against theweight of the evidence and without any legal or factual basis.103. For more clarity and transparent the Petitioner states that the Petitioner has duly ,properlyand correctly declared all her assets and investments  in the relevant  assets and liabilitiesdeclarations and in any event the Petitioner could not have declared the investments inthe routing accounts under accounts catagory for the simple reason the Petitioner has to declare her investments under investments category. If the Petitioner was to declare the transactions in the routing accounts, there would have been duplicate (double) entries.C HARGE N UMBER 5104. The Petitioner states that Charge No. 5 against the Petitioner reads as follows;Whereas, Mr. Pradeep Gamini Suraj Kariyawasam, the lawful husband of the said Hon. (Dr.) (Mrs.) Upatissa Atapattu Bandaranayake Wasala MudiyanseRalahamilage Shirani

Anshumala Bandaranayake is a suspect in relation to legalaction initiated at the Magistrate’s Court of Colombo in connection with the offencesregarding acts of bribery and/or corruption under the Commission to Investigate intoAllegations of Bribery or Corruption Act, No 19 of
1994;Whereas,  the  post  of  Chairperson  of  the  Judicial  Service  Commission  which  is vestedwith powers to transfer, disciplinary control and removal of the Magistrate of the said
court which is due to hear the aforesaid bribery or corruption case is held by the said Hon.
(Dr.) (Mrs.) Upatissa Atapattu Bandaranayake Wasala MudiyanseRalahamilage Shirani Anshumala Bandaranayake as per Article 111D (2) of the Constitution;Whereas, the powers to examine the judicial records, registers and other documentsmaintained by the aforesaid court are vested with the said Hon. (Dr.) (Mrs.) UpatissaAtapattu Bandaranayake Wasala Mudiyanse Ralahamilage Shirani AnshumalaBandaranayake under Article 111H (3) by virtue of being the Chairperson of theJudicial Service Commission;Whereas, the Hon. (Dr.) (Mrs.) Upatissa Atapattu Bandaranayake Wasala MudiyanseRalahamilage Shirani Anshumala Bandaranayake becomes unsuitable to continue in the office of the Chief Justice due to the legal action relevant to the allegations of bribery and corruption levelled against Mr. Pradeep Gamini  Suraj  Kariyawasam,  the  lawful  husband  of  the  said  Hon.  (Dr.)  (Mrs.)  Upatissa Atapattu  Bandaranayake  Wasala  Mudiyanse  Ralahamilage  Shirani  Anshumala Bandaranayake in the aforesaid manner, and as a result of her continuance in the office of the Chief Justice,administration of justice is hindered and the fundamentals of administration of justiceare thereby violated and whereas not only administration of justice but visibleadministration of justice should take place;105. The Petitioner states that ex facie the said Charge is bad in law and cannot be sustained since the said charge probabilities and surmises and not on any factual occurrences. 106. The Petitioner categorically states that there was no matter concerning the ChiefMagistrate that came up before the Judicial Services Commission after the Petitioner’s husband was charged in the Magistrate’s Court. 107. The Petitioner further states that the said purported charge cannot in any event be a ground for proved misbehaviour in the absence of any allegation that the Petitioner has infact conducted herself in a manner unbecoming of a Judge of the Superior Courts inrelation to the said Charge. 108. Without prejudice to the above, the Petitioner states that ex facie the finding of the Select Committee are false, based on probabilities and surmises, wrongful, unlawful, against the weight of the evidence and without any legal or factual basis. 109. The Petitioner states that the purported report of the 2 nd to 8 th Respondents have concluded that there is insufficient evidence to find the Petitioner guilty of charges 2 and 3 and therefore the 2 nd to
8 th Respondents have not come to any conclusion with regard tothe said charges. 110. In the circumstances the Petitioner states that despite the aforesaid arbitrary investigation conducted ex parte by the 2 nd to 8 th Respondents, without adhering to the rule of law and principles of natural justice, on the own admission of the 2 nd to 8 th Respondents there is insufficient evidence even by the very negligible standard proof adopted by the saidRespondents to establish the said charges 2 and 3 relating to an alleged sum of Rs. 34 Million in foreign currency being received by the Petitioner, which the Petitioner hasallegedly not declared in the relevant asset declarations. 111. The Petitioner states that the purported report of the 2 nd to 8 th Respondent have notaddressed the purported charges 6 to 14 and have not come to any conclusion in respectof the said charges. 112. The Petitioner states that thus and otherwise(a)the  purported exercise  of judicial  power by the  Select  Committee appointed under Standing Order 78A is contrary to Article 4(c) of the Constitution;(b)the Petitioner in the limited response dated 20 th November 2012 took up theobjection that the Parliament by standing orders confer itself judicial power and therefore the purported Select Committee has no jurisdiction to hold the purported inquiry.

113. The Petitioner states that the purported exercise of the judicial power by the SelectCommittee is unconstitutional and therefore any findings of the said purported Select Committee has no force or effect in law. 114. In the aforesaid circumstances the Petitioner states that(a)exercise of judicial power by the purported Select Committee is unconstitutional; (b)functioning of the 2 nd to 8 th Respondents as the purported Select Committeenotwithstanding the vacancy created by the withdrawal of the 9 th to 12 th Respondents is wrongful, unlawful and ultra vires of the Standing Orders of the Parliament.(c)the Petitioner was deprived of a fair hearing;(d)In the aforesaid circumstances the Petitioner pleads that the 2 nd to 8 th Respondentsof the Select Committee -(i) failed to adhere to the rule of law ;(ii) breached the rules of natural justice(iii) acted unreasonably, and/or capriciously and/or arbitrarily(iv) had prejudged the issue.115. In the aforesaid circumstances the Petitioner pleads that there had been proceduralirregularity in the manner in which the Select Committee conducted its affairs.116. The Petitioner further states that:(a)the Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act No. 21 of 1953 as amended affords no protection to the aforesaid unconstitutional and ultra vires acts of the 2 nd to 12 th Respondents complained hereof;(b)the judiciary is the only Institution entrusted with the onerous task of keepingevery organ of State within the limits of the law and thereby making the Rule of Law enshrined in the Constitution meaningful and effective. (c)the Government of Sri Lanka has represented that the decisions of the SelectCommittee appointed under Standing Order 78A would attract judicial scrutiny in the periodic report submitted by the Government of Sri Lanka to the Human Rights Committee appointed under and in terms of the International Covenant onCivil
& Political Rights.117. For a fuller disclosure the Petitioner states that when the impeachment motion was presented to Parliament wide publicity was given to it in the media and therefore thePetitioners Attorneys-at-Law addressed a letter to the media, a true copy of which is filed herewith  marked  P19  and  pleaded  as  part  and  parcel  hereof.118.  The  Counsel  for  the Petitioner also issued statements to the media on or about 07/12/2012 and 12/12/2012, and true copies of which are filed herewith marked P20(a)and P20(b) respectively and pleaded as part and parcel hereof.

The Petitioner also annexes hereto compendiously marked P21 the several documents the Counsel tendered to the Tribunal on 4 th December 2012 marked ‘A1’ to ‘A11(b)’ andpleads the same as part and parcel hereof.120. The Petitioner respectfully states that irremediable mischief and irreparable damagewould be caused to the Petitioner and the independence and the integrity of the judiciaryand to the institutions of justice if the interim order prayed for are not granted. ThePetitioner states that the resolution for the removal of the Petitioner based on the purported report P17 is due to be taken up for debate on 8 th January 2013. 121. The Petitioner respectfully states that the report P17 was available only in the afternoon of the 17 th December 2012, and seeks the indulgence of Court to tender any documents that are necessary and presently not in the hands of the Petitioner at a subsequent stage asand when she obtains the same.122. In the circumstance the Petitioner respectfully states that the Petitioner is entitled to seek;(a)a mandate in the nature of Writ of Certiorari quashing the report of the 2 nd to 8 th Respondents marked as P17.(b)a mandate in the nature of Writ of Prohibition, prohibiting the 1 st Respondent fromacting on and or taking any further steps based on the purported report marked as P17.(c)an Interim Order restraining the 1 st Respondent from acting on and or taking anyfurther steps based on the purported report marked as P17 until the hearing anddetermination of this Application by Your Lordships' Court.123. The Petitioner states that the Petitioner has not previously invoked the jurisdiction ofYour  Lordships'  Court  in  respect  of  the  subject  matter  of  this  Application.  124.  An Affidavit of the Petitioner is appended hereto in support of the averments containedherein. W HEREFORE the Petitioner pleads that Your Lordships' Court be pleased to:(a) issue Notice

on the Respondents;(b) grant a mandate in the nature of Writ of Certiorari quashing the findings and/or the decision of the report of the 2 nd to 8 th Respondents marked as P17 and/or quashing the said report marked as P17;

(c)grant a mandate in the nature of Writ of Prohibition, prohibiting the 1 st Respondentand/or
2  nd  to  13  th  Respondents  from  acting  on  and  or  taking  any  further  steps  based  on thepurported report marked as P17;(d) grant an Interim Order restraining the 1 st Respondent
and/or 2 nd to 13 th Respondents fromacting on and or taking any further steps based on the
purported report marked as P17until the hearing and determination of this Application by
Your Lordships' Court;(e) grant an Interim Order restraining the 1 st Respondent and/or 2 nd to 13 th Respondents fromtaking any further steps consequent to the purported report marked as P17 until the hearing and determination of this Application by Your Lordships' Court;(f) grant an Interim Order staying the effect of the purported report P17 and/or staying anyfurther action based on the said purported report P17;(g) grant costs; and(h) grant such other and further reliefs as to Your Lordships Court shall seem meet.REGISTERED ATTORNEYS FOR THE PETITIONERSettled by:Eraj de Silva Esq.Attorney-at-LawShanaka Cooray Esq.Attorney-at-LawManjuka Fernandopulle Esq.Attorney-at-LawBuddhike Illangatilake Esq.Attorney-at-LawRiad Ameen Esq.Attorney-at-LawSugath Caldera Esq.Attorney-at- LawSaliya K.M. Pieris Esq.Attorney-at-LawNalin Ladduwahetty Esq.President’s CounselJ. Romesh de Silva Esq.President’s Counsel Sc(206)-Petition.doc/Pleadings/Petition