Back to Chapters

Chapter 7: The Judiciary

This Chapter establishes Sri Lanka’s independent system of courts headed by the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal and including the High Court and other tribunals, sets out public sittings, judicial appointments, tenure and removal, protection from interference, and creates the Judicial Service Commission and superior court jurisdictions for constitutional review, fundamental rights, appeals, and election disputes.

Tip: select any clause to view its history, discussion, and suggest an edit.

Article 55: General jurisdiction of Supreme Court

Drafted from public input and research by civic organizations.

Current Constitutional Text

The Supreme Court of the Republic of Sri Lanka shall be the highest and final superior Court of record in the Republic and shall subject to the provisions of the Constitution exercise –

(a)jurisdiction in respect of constitutional matters;

(b)Jurisdiction for the protection of fundamental rights;

(c) final appellate jurisdiction; consultative jurisdiction;

(d) jurisdiction in election petitions; jurisdiction in respect of any breach of the privileges of Parliament;

and

(e) jurisdiction in respect of such other matters which Parliament may by law vest or ordain.

Asking AI to compare the drafts...
55.1

The Supreme Court of the Republic of Sri Lanka shall be the highest and final superior court of record in all other matters not expressly assigned by this Constitution to the Constitutional Court.

55.2

Accordingly, the Supreme Court shall have and exercise—

  1. final appellate jurisdiction in all civil and criminal matters;

  2. jurisdiction for the protection of fundamental rights under Article 126; and

  3. jurisdiction in respect of any other matter which Parliament may by law vest or ordain.

Article 56: Constitutional Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

Drafted from public input and research by civic organizations.

Current Constitutional Text

The Supreme Court shall have sole and exclusive jurisdiction to determine any question as to whether any Bill or any provision thereof is inconsistent with the Constitution: Provided that –

(a) in the case of a Bill described in its long title as being for the amendment of any provision of the Constitution, or for the repeal and replacement of the Constitution, the only question which the Supreme Court may determine is whether such Bill requires approval by the People at a Referendum by virtue of the provisions of Article 83;

(b)where the Cabinet of Ministers certifies that a Bill, which is described in its long title as being for the amendment of any provisions of the Constitution; or for the repeal and replacement of the Constitution, intended to be passed with the special majority required by Article 83 and submitted to the People by Referendum, the Supreme Court shall have and exercise no jurisdiction in respect of such Bill;

(c)where the Cabinet of Ministers certifies that a Bill which is not described in its long title as being for the amendment of any provision of the Constitution, or for the repeal and replacement of the Constitution, is intended to be passed with the special majority required by Article 84, the only question which the Supreme Court may determine is whether such Bill requires approval by the People at a Referendum by virtue of the provisions of Article 83 or whether such Bill is required to comply with paragraphs (1) and (2) of Article 82; or Constitutional Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

(d) Ordinary Exercise of constitutional jurisdiction in respect of Bills where the Cabinet of Ministers certifies that any provision of any Bill which is not described in its long title as being for the amendment of any provision of the Constitution or for the repeal and replacement of the Constitution is intended to be passed with the special majority required by Article 84, the only question which the Supreme Court may determine is whether any other provision of such Bill requires to be passed with the special majority required by Article 84 or whether any provision of such Bill requires the approval by the People at a Referendum by virtue of the provisions of Article 83 or whether such Bill is required to comply with the provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) of Article 82.

Asking AI to compare the drafts...

The period within which a citizen may challenge the constitutionality of a Bill under Article 120 (1978 Constitution) shall be fourteen days from the date on which such Bill is placed on the Order Paper of Parliament.

Explanation

The provision contained in Article 122(1)(b)(1978 constitution), which prohibits any inquiry into the constitutionality of a Bill certified by the Cabinet of Ministers as urgent in the national interest, is hereby repealed.

Article 57: Post-enactment Judicial Review

Drafted from public input and research by civic organizations.

Current Constitutional Text

New one to Constitution

Asking AI to compare the drafts...
57.1

Notwithstanding its enactment and certification, any law (hereinafter referred to as the "impugned law") may be challenged on the ground of inconsistency with the Constitution before the Constitutional Court, within a period of six months from the date such law comes into force.

57.2

Such challenge may be made by way of a petition by—

  1. any citizen;

  2. any recognised political party;

  3. the Attorney-General; or

  4. the Human Rights Commission.

57.3

If the Constitutional Court determines that the impugned law, or any provision thereof, is inconsistent with the Constitution, it shall have the power to declare such law or provision to be void, either in whole or in part, from the date of its enactment or from such other date as the Court may specify.

Article 58: Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal

Drafted from public input and research by civic organizations.

Current Constitutional Text

(1)The Court of Appeal shall have and exercise subject to the provisions of the Constitution or of any law, an appellate jurisdiction for the correction of all errors in fact or in law which shall be 128[committed by the High Court, in the exercise of its appellate or original jurisdiction or by any Court of First Instance], tribunal or other institution and sole and exclusive cognizance, by way of appeal, revision and restitutio in integrum, of all causes, suits, actions, prosecutions, matters and things 129[of which such High Court, Court of First Instance], tribunal or other institution may have taken cognizance:

Provided that no judgement, decree or order of any court shall be reversed or varied on account of any error, defect or irregularity, which has not prejudiced the substantial rights of the parties or occasioned a failure of justice.

(2) The Court of Appeal shall also have and exercise all such powers and jurisdiction, appellate and original, as Parliament may by law vest or ordain

Asking AI to compare the drafts...
58.1

In addition to the jurisdictions specified in Article 106(1978 constitution), the Court of Appeal shall have and exercise the following jurisdictions:

(a) A State Accounts Jurisdiction to hear and determine any application relating to the legality, regularity, or propriety of the use or management of public funds, assets, or resources by any ministry, department, state corporation, or local authority;

(b) Original jurisdiction in each Province to hear and determine applications alleging a violation of fundamental rights or language rights by any provincial or local authority, under procedures to be prescribed by law.

58.2

The Judges of the Court of Appeal may sit in panels in any Province as determined by the President of the Court of Appeal.

Article 59: Fundamental rights jurisdiction and its exercise

Drafted from public input and research by civic organizations.

Current Constitutional Text

(1) The Supreme Court shall have sole and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine any question relating to the infringement or imminent infringement by executive or administrative action of any fundamental right or language right declared and recognized by Chapter III or Chapter IV.

(2) Where any person alleges that any such fundamental right or language right relating to such person has been infringed or is about to be infringed by executive or administrative action, he may himself or by an Attorney-at-Law on his behalf, within one month thereof, in accordance with such rules of court as may be in force, apply to the Supreme Court by way of petition in writing addressed to such Court praying for relief or redress in respect of such infringement. Such application may be proceeded with only with leave to proceed first had and obtained from the Supreme Court, which leave may be granted or refused, as the case may be, by not less than two judges.

(3) Where in the course of hearing in the Court of Appeal into an application for orders in the nature of a writ of habeas corpus, certiorari, prohibition, procedendo, mandamus or quo warranto, it appears to such Court that there is prima facie evidence of an infringement or imminent infringement of the provisions of Chapter III or Chapter IV by a party to such application, such Court shall forthwith refer such matter for determination by the Supreme Court.

(4) The Supreme Court shall have power to grant such relief or make such directions as it may deem just and equitable in the circumstance in respect of any petition or reference referred to in paragraphs (2) and (3) of this Article or refer the matter back to the Court of Appeal if in its opinion there is no infringement of a fundamental right or language right.

(5) The Supreme Court shall hear and finally dispose of any petition or reference under this Article within two months of the filing of such petition or the making of such reference.

Asking AI to compare the drafts...
59.1

The Supreme Court shall have sole and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine any question relating to the infringement or imminent infringement by executive or administrative action of the Central Government of any fundamental right or language right declared and recognised by Chapter III or Chapter IV(1978 constitution).

59.2

The Court of Appeal shall have sole and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine any question relating to the infringement or imminent infringement by executive or administrative action of a Provincial Council or Local Authority of any such right.

59.3

Parliament may by law provide for the procedural details for the exercise of the jurisdiction under paragraph

Article 60: The Judicial Policy Council

Drafted from public input and research by civic organizations.

Current Constitutional Text

New one to constitution

Asking AI to compare the drafts...
60.1

There shall be a Judicial Policy Council of the Republic, which shall be responsible for making recommendations and providing advice concerning the appointment, transfer, disciplinary action, and dismissal of Judges of the Superior Courts, and on matters relating to the overall policy, integrity, and efficiency of the judicial system.

60.2

The Judicial Policy Council shall consist of the following members:

(a) The Chief Justice, who shall be the Chairperson;

(b) The President of the Court of Appeal;

(c) The Attorney-General;

(d) The Minister of Justice, or a nominee of such Minister;

(e) One Senior Judge of the Supreme Court elected by the Judges of the Supreme Court;

(f) One Senior Judge of the Court of Appeal elected by the Judges of the Court of Appeal;

(g) Two legal professionals of eminence and integrity, with at least twenty years of standing, appointed by the President on the recommendation of the Constitutional Council.

60.3

The Council shall regulate its own procedure. Its recommendations on appointments to the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal shall be made to the Constitutional Council

Have feedback on this chapter?

Your insights help shape a stronger constitution. Propose amendments, suggest improvements, or join the discussion.

Sign In to Contribute

Ask the Constitution

Constitutional Q&A

I can only answer questions about Sri Lanka’s Constitution.

I’ll keep answers short and focused.