These applications contend that only a judicial enquiry on misconduct will be fair and the accuser, the prosecutor and the judge cannot be the same body - Parliament. The opposition impeachment motion against the Chief Justice, signed by 77 MPs, was tabled on 7 June. It contains 14 charges, including obstruction of justice and abuse of power.
Under Article 107 of the constitution, a judge of the Supreme Court can be removed only by an order of the President, made after an address of Parliament, supported by the majority of MPs, on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. On 20 June, Mr Bandaranaike ruled that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to restrain the Speaker from exercising powers under parliamentary Standing Orders.
In three other fundamental rights applications on the same day, the Supreme Court ruled that it had no powers to remove the Chief Justice. The Court confirmed that the Chief Justice can only be removed by Parliament. Three journalists, including Victor Ivan, had filed the applications.
The Court said that the applicants had not alleged that Mr Silva was guilty of abusing their fundamental rights. They had accused President Chandrika of violating their rights by appointing Mr Silva. The President is granted immunity by the constitution from being summoned before a court of law.
Opposition parties blamed Supreme Court judges Shirani Bandaranayake and PRP Perera of issuing contradictory orders. The two judges were part of the Bench which said on 20 June that only Parliament had the power to remove the Chief Justice. They were also in the Bench that issued orders on 6 June to restrain the Speaker from considering the motion to impeach the Chief Justice.
President Chandrika’s appointment of Ms Bandaranayake, an academic, and Mr Silva, who was Attorney General, over the heads of senior judges, created controversy. It is alleged that these measures were an attempt to overcome difficulties in the adoption of a new constitution.
The Asian Human rights Commission (AHRC) says that crisis in the judiciary is contributing to human rights abuses and denying remedy to victims. The inability of the components of the judicial system - the police, the prosecution and the judicial branches - to effectively enforce the law, has resulted in a loss of faith. The AHRC says that the power of Parliament to investigate the Chief Justice provides an opportunity to ensure that the justice system functions within a democratic framework of governance.