Yesterday it was mentioned in this space that Parliament has reached consensus over the fact that there cannot be strictures passed on the functions of that legislative body by the Judiciary. The government and opposition had reached an unequivocal agreement on the matter.
Shortly after, the Speaker of the House gave his own ruling, and in no uncertain terms said that the notices issued by the Judiciary are a nullity. The Supreme Court however has gone on today to call for written submissions from the respondents - - the members of Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) for instance, with regard to the petitions filed challenging that body and its functions.
The Judiciary must obviously be doing this as a matter of routine; respondents in these types of cases are asked to submit written submissions subsequent to the issuance of notice. But this is certainly not just any other case, and the persistence on the part of the Judiciary on insisting on written submissions after the Speaker's very unequivocal and rather strongly worded ruling, is to say the least, not prudent -- and certainly not quite in order, never mind the considerations of good taste.
The Supreme Court may be perusing this matter in a routine manner, but that does not necessarily absolve the highest members of the Judiciary for embarking on a direct confrontational route with the elected representatives of government.
Such a confrontation is a serious matter. It seems time that the highest court of the land acted within their powers, so as not to provoke a needless constitutional crisis from which it cannot emerge victorious. Precipitating a constitutional crisis that has the potential to snowball into something serious, is not a matter that would be appreciated by the people of this country.
The Judiciary should also take into cognizance the fact that the emphatic assertion of authority by Parliament over the Judicial branch is not a matter to be trifled with, particularly when the Executive and the Legislature are in concert on this matter.
It is in other words, two arms of the State, against one - and if one arm of State hopes to outmaneuver the two others put together, this is to create a constitutional standoff that puts the Judiciary in a very bad light, in the context of the forces that are arraigned against it.
Certain so called neutral observers had made the observation in this matter that the Legislature too consists of a large part of the Executive in this country, since the large cabinet is part of the Executive and is represented in the Legislature - - but that contention, whether valid or not, can no longer be made when the Opposition has made its own position patently clear on this matter, concurring with the Executive and the rest of the Legislature that the Judiciary has no business passing strictures on it, or interfering in any way on a matter strictly within its ambit such as the appointment of a PSC to investigate misbehavior charges involving the Chief Justice.
The Judiciary should also beware (... and be aware of) the potential appearance of bias in that the Judicial branch seems to be poised in this tentatively confrontational direction against the Executive and the Legislature, mostly on behalf of its own Head.
To threaten the entire edifice of governance and the delicate balance between the three branches of government in the pursuance of an issue involving the embattled chief of its own Judicial branch, smacks of a certain partisanship and a judicial arrogation of powers to be judge in what would be seen as its own cause.
The Judiciary should also have been under the circumstances, aware of precedent in this matter -- the ruling by former Speaker Anura Bandaranaike that no writs can be passed on Parliament.
In the backdrop of all of these relevant considerations, the Judiciary if its is not to be perceived as having provoked a deliberate confrontation, will be well advised to embark on a path of course-correction and be cognizant of the constitutional prerogatives of the elected Legislature, which have been stressed and asserted in no uncertain terms on both sides of the aisle.
