04 September 2013

The disabled judiciary

Some say that the judiciary was disabled by the 1978 Constitution.  Some say that this is why Shirani B lost out to Mahinda R in the impeachment saga.  But everyone knows that when a judge takes his or her seat, whatever disabilities have been vested with the judiciary are duly passed on to those waiting to be judged, just like corporates pass on taxes to consumers.  The other day, an irate judge had thrown some hot coffee on a disabled person who had been serving him outside a popular eatery in Bambalapitiya.  Apparently the wife of the judge hadn't liked the taste.  Now we know that judges can on whim impose penalties on whoever, but that's in court.  But this, is taking things to territories over which the judge does not have jurisdiction.  Whatever will we have next, judges throwing plates at restaurant managers, grabbing the nozzle of a petrol pump and dousing the attendant, or seizing an injection from a nurse and giving a dose to the doctor?  



Shaik Ahamath said...

In a true democracy, the segregation of powers is sacrosant and the government should have no interference on the judiciary. For this reason I found the removal of Shirani B questionable. In most countries, the government has a hand in appointing judges, but once appointed, they cannot be removed no matter what. In UK for instance the late septuagenarian Lord Denning was giving debatable verdicts overturned on appeals but his job was guaranteed for life and couldn't be removed.