Friday Sep 11, 2026
Friday Sep 11, 2026
Friday, 11 September 2026 04:51 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
The Government has introduced the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution citing expediting the delivery of justice, clearing massive backlog of cases, and retaining experienced legal minds as the primary justifications. Considering the two cases mentioned above, the Government move is certainly noble and commendable
Cost of delay in administration of justice
A friend of mine, Lal, once told me that his family’s ancestral land of 10 acres was acquired for a hotel project in the early 1980s. A case was filed to determine the compensation. Lal’s father attended every court hearing until his death. Thereafter, his mother continued attending court. Still, there was no verdict before she too passed away. Lal eventually attended himself courts hearing. The court decided some 30 years later. The judgement was in his favour. “Machan Chandre,” Lal told me, “Court ordered that the amount sought by my father (value of the land at the time of acquisition), should be paid. With that money, I cannot buy even 10 perches of land today.”
Recently, I read in the print media about a case in which a court sentenced a man to prison and ordered him to pay Rs. 1 million in compensation to a girl whom he had raped when she was nine years old. The verdict was in her favour. The girl is now 19. She has lost 10 years of her childhood and found herself being looked at as though she had brought disgrace upon herself, parents, relatives, friends and neighbours.
After years of waiting, the money spent, the time lost and the mental agony suffered, how much justice did the judgements really deliver in the above 2 cases?
22nd Amendment to the Constitution
The Government has introduced the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution citing expediting the delivery of justice, clearing massive backlog of cases, and retaining experienced legal minds as the primary justifications. Considering the two cases mentioned above, the Government move is certainly noble and commendable.
President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, while addressing the 42nd National Milad-un-Nabi State Celebration in Negombo on 26 August, spoke about the proposed amendment and its implications for the judicial process. He has also said that the amendment is not harmful to the general public. That reminded me of something my grandfather used to say about 70 years ago: “Snake gourd is neither harmful nor beneficial.” Anything that is not harmful is not necessarily beneficial.
Nature is above Executive powers
Sri Lanka’s first Executive President, J. R. Jayewardene, famously remarked that the only thing he could not do with his enormous political powers was to “change a man into a woman and a woman into a man.” Sri Lanka’s 9th Executive President, AKD who promised system change, has discovered another thing an Executive President cannot do: stop judges from ageing.
So, instead, we extend the retirement age.
Questions concerning the legality, constitutionality and desirability of the proposed amendment have been debated by those who are qualified to do so. I am not a constitutional expert, a politician or a legal luminary. But I have grown older gathering a little experience of how Government works. And I would like to share my experience.
The Highway Code provides rules and principles intended to protect road users. But I often wonder: How many drivers actually obey these rules, and how many police officers properly enforce them? Drivers ignore the presence of police officers. Police officers sometimes appear to ignore the violations
Court backlog: More of an issue outside the judiciary
The President himself has identified the need to strengthen several institutions involved in the administration of justice, including the Criminal Investigation Department, the Bribery Commission, the Attorney General’s Department and the Government Analyst’s Department.
So perhaps we should look beyond the judges.
According to official figures presented to Parliament, Sri Lanka has more than one million pending court cases. Magistrate’s Courts account for the largest share, including a very large number of cases connected with traffic offences.
Many court cases were being dragged on because Government agencies were taking too long to provide information and reports. The Chief Justice agreed to direct Magistrates and District Court Judges in the Southern Region to provide the Ministry with details of reports and documents that were pending from State agencies. The Ministry then coordinated with those agencies and expedited the reports. The lesson was simple. Sometimes age of the judge is not the reason a case is delayed. The file is
Negligence of prevention No. 1: Road accidents
Sri Lanka has laws, regulations and institutions designed to prevent road accidents. The Motor Traffic Act contains provisions against reckless, dangerous and careless driving, speeding, dangerous overtaking, overloading and driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Drivers involved in accidents are also required to stop and report the incident.
The Highway Code provides rules and principles intended to protect road users.
But I often wonder: How many drivers actually obey these rules, and how many police officers properly enforce them?
Drivers ignore the presence of police officers. Police officers sometimes appear to ignore the violations.
When prevention fails, accidents occur. When accidents occur, investigations begin. Cases enter the courts. Hearings follow. Magistrates, lawyers, police officers, witnesses and court staff spend time dealing with matters that, in many instances, could have been prevented in the first place.
The Prime Minister recently emphasised that preventing road accidents should be regarded not merely as a legal obligation but as a personal responsibility.
That principle should also be applied when we think about the court backlog.
“Why can’t the Magistrate visit the remand prison and announce the next hearing there?” I asked. “It would save time, money, inconvenience and avoid delays.” The Minister smiled and replied: “Maliyadde, it’s a wonderful suggestion—but you cannot do it with lawyers.” A little joke, a little truth
Negligence of prevention No. 2: Corruption
The Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption produces accused persons before courts for alleged corruption. But preventing corruption is equally important.
The Anti-Corruption Act itself recognises prevention as an important function, including preventing and eradicating bribery and corruption, conducting educational activities and promoting inter-agency cooperation.
If corruption can be prevented, corruption cases need not enter the courts in the first place.
Prevention is the first line of defence against delay. Every case prevented is one less case added to the backlog.
Starting with last resort
There are already numerous rules and regulations within the public sector to deal with negligence, misconduct, misappropriation, corruption and administrative irregularities. The Establishments Code, Financial Regulations, administrative regulations and circulars provide mechanisms for dealing with such irregularities. If these rules were properly followed and enforced, some disputes need never become court cases. The court should be the last resort. But we seem to make it the first resort.
When old laws collide with new realities, ordinary citizens can sometimes find themselves before the courts for conduct that may have been unavoidable in the circumstances. That too adds to the burden on the judiciary
Police verdict comes before court verdict
There is another problem.
Recently, it was reported that a girl leaving the BMICH after her convocation was abducted by an unknown person. The police rescued her, but the suspect had not yet been apprehended. A senior police officer was reported to have stated that the suspect was connected with drug trafficking. But when a suspect has not even been identified and apprehended, should conclusions about him already be circulating publicly?
This is not an isolated occurrence. Whenever a death occurs, a shoplifting incident is reported, an abduction takes place, a shooting occurs, or a suicide is reported, the police sometimes announce that the accused—and, at times, even the victim—is connected to the underworld or drug trafficking. Such pronouncements can divert public attention, create confusion and, make the administration of justice more difficult causing delays in the court proceedings.
Government agencies that delay justice
When I was the Southern Region Development Ministry Secretary, the then Minister appointed the late Deshabandu Dr. Victor Hettigoda as an adviser. One day he told me that many court cases were being dragged on because Government agencies were taking too long to provide information and reports. He suggested, “Let’s meet the Chief Justice and discuss this.” We did.
The Chief Justice agreed to direct Magistrates and District Court Judges in the Southern Region to provide the Ministry with details of reports and documents that were pending from State agencies. The Ministry then coordinated with those agencies and expedited the reports.
The lesson was simple. Sometimes age of the judge is not the reason a case is delayed. The file is.
We may find ourselves doing what governments have often done: taking the bull by the horns without first asking whether the bull is actually the problem. And there is a danger in that. The remedy could become worse than the malady. Justice delayed is justice denied. But if we genuinely want to end that denial, we must do more than make judges sit longer. We must make the whole system work better
Demonstrating remand prisoners
On another occasion, I was waiting for my vehicle in the lobby of Temple Trees after a meeting when the Justice Minister arrived. We started chatting. I asked him why remand prisoners had to be brought to court merely for the Magistrate to announce the next date of hearing.
“Why can’t the Magistrate visit the remand prison and announce the next hearing there?” I asked. “It would save time, money, inconvenience and avoid delays.”
The Minister smiled and replied: “Maliyadde, it’s a wonderful suggestion—but you cannot do it with lawyers.”
A little joke, a little truth.
Society changed. Laws remain unchanged
Another matter that deserves attention is the large number of archaic laws, Acts and ordinances that remain on our statute books. Many were enacted decades ago under circumstances very different from those of today. Land-use patterns have changed. Habitats have changed. Ownership patterns have changed. Society itself has changed.
Yet some laws remain largely unchanged.
For example, wildlife habitats have become human settlements thanks to modernisation in the guise of development. Yet, the legal framework designed for a very different era for a very different purpose remains unchanged. Laws such as the Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance, Forest Ordinance date back to early 1900.
When old laws collide with new realities, ordinary citizens can sometimes find themselves before the courts for conduct that may have been unavoidable in the circumstances. That too adds to the burden on the judiciary.
Disputes between Government agencies
There are instances where one State agency takes another State agency to court. Some of these disputes could perhaps be resolved through consultation, coordination, compromise and consensus.
There are even instances where heads of Government institutions take their own subordinates to court. These are not judicial problems but a leadership problem. But add to the courts backlog.
Identify causes before treating symptoms
I have mentioned only a few examples. I am not suggesting that extending the retirement age of judges is right or wrong. Nor am I suggesting that additional judges, additional courts or experienced judges cannot contribute to reducing delays.
My humble suggestion is if the Government is genuinely interested in clearing the court backlog it should undertake a comprehensive study of the entire justice-delivery system.
Once we know where the bottlenecks are, we can design remedies that address the causes rather than merely treating the symptom.
Otherwise, we may find ourselves doing what governments have often done: taking the bull by the horns without first asking whether the bull is actually the problem.
And there is a danger in that. The remedy could become worse than the malady.
Justice delayed is justice denied. But if we genuinely want to end that denial, we must do more than make judges sit longer.
We must make the whole system work better.
(The writer is the former Secretary, Plan Implementation Ministry. He can be reached on [email protected])
