Source: https://www.kapruka.com/Sri_Lanka/law/view_legal_document.jsp?type=text&key1=Judgements&key2=SLR&key3=SLR-1983%20Vol.1-P203&key4=Constitution%20Judgements
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 08:16:49+00:00

Document:
ABDUL CADER J., AND RODRIGO, J.
October 3 to 5, 1983.
one month - Interpretation of mutatis - mutandis clause - Non compliance by the judges -Didtheyceasetoholdoffice?
(5) - Article 35 - Proceedings - Oaths and Affirmations Ordinance. - section 12 and Section 5 of the Judicature Act.
(1) The principles of interpretation that govern ordinary law are equally applicable to the provisions oftheConstitution.
is directory and default does not attract the sanction prescribed by Article 165 of the Constitution.
warranted by lawthe seal of the President by itself will not be sufficient to discharge that burden.
corresponding to that day in the following month is a calendar month.
(5) The phrase mutatis mutandis means with necessary alterations in point of detail.
the oath before the President is not mandatory but directory.
of the sixth Amendment was mandatory but this was complied with and therefore the judges did not cease to hold office.
(1)Ramhari vs Nilmoni Das A.I.R. 1952Calcutta 184,186.
(2)State of U.P.V Babu Ram A.I.R. 1961 (SC) 765.
(3)Touriel vs. Internal Affairs Southern Rhodesia (1946) S.A.L.R. (A.D.) 535, 544.
(4)Motilal v. Commissioner of Income Tax A.I.R. 1951 Nagpur 224.
(5)K.M. Words V.I.T. Commissioner A.I.R 1953 A.I.R. 1953 Punjab 300.
(7)The Highland Tea company of ceylon Ltd., v. Jinadasa 35 C.L.W. 47.
(8)Dodds v. Walker  2 All. E.R. 609 H.L.
(9)Lissenden v. Bosh Ltd.  A.C. 412,  1 All ER 405,412.
(10)Evans v. Bartlam  2 All ER 646, 652.
(11)Nippon Monkwa Kabushiki Kaisha v. Dawson's Bank Ltd.  1 LL L R, 147,150.
(12)Bank of England v. Cutler  2 KB 208,234.
(13)Maritime Electric Co. Ltd., v. General Diaries Ltd.,  A.C. 610.
(14)Southend-on-Sea Corporation v. Hodgson Ltd,  1 All Er page 46 1 Q.B 416.
(15)Johnson v. Moraton  3 All ER 37,47,49.
(16)Hunt v. Hunt (1862) 31 L.J. Ch. 161, 178.
(17)National westminister Bank Ltd. v. Halesowen Press works Ltd.  1 All ER 641,652.
(18)Burton v. United States 195 us 205.
(19)Customs & Excise Commissioner v. Hebson Ltd.  2 Lloyds Law Rep. 382.
(20)Society of Medical Officers of Health v. Hope 1 All ER 317.
(21)N.W. Gas Corporation v. Manchester Corporation  3 All ER 442.
(22)Welch v. Nagy  1KB 455.
(23)Basheshar Nath v. Commissioner of Income Tax AIR 1959 SC 149.
(24)Ram Gopal v. National Housing Corporation AIR 1969 Allahabad 278.
(25)Bhaskar Moharana v. Arjun Moharana AIR 1962 Orissa 167.
(26)Kushi Ram Raghunath Sahai v. Commissioner of Income Tax A.I.R. 1953 (Punjab) 300.
(27)Touriel v. Minister of internal Affairs Southern Rhodesia SALR (1946) AD 535.
(28)The Liverpool Borough Bank v. Turner (1860) 30 LJ Ch. 379.
(29)In re C.P. Motor Spirit Act 1939 A.I.R. 4 Fed. Ct.p. 1,5.
(30)Kunasingham v. Ponnambalam 54 NLR 36.
(31)Imperial Tea Company Ltd., v. Aramady 25 N.L.R. 327.
(32)Scadding v. Lorant (1851) 3 H.L.C. 418, 10 ER 164.
(33)R. v. Bedford Level Corporation (1805) 6 East 356, 368.
(34)Bhaskara Pillai v. The State of (Travancore Cochin ) 382 (1950).
S. Nadesan Q.C. with S. Mahenthiran And S.H.M. Reeza for petitioners.
S. Aziz, Deputy Solicitor General with P.Karunaratne, S.C. for 1st , 2nd and 3rd respondents.
come. It behaves me therefore to set out in detail the events that occurred in their chronological order.
the same Court. At this juncture I might mention that the Judges of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal are exofficioJ.
all well within the time limit of one month stipulated in the Bill and the Act.
judges of this Court on 8th September, 1983. The argument was not concluded on that day and was resumed on the next day.
object was clear -that was to prevent the judges from asserting their rights. I must now revert to the chronology ofevents.
Constitution and the other was the oath in terms of the Seventh Schedule to the Sixth Amendment.
3. Is the President's act of making a fresh appointment of the judges an executive act not questionable in a Court of law?
the provisions of Article 126(5) are mandatory. I shall now proceed to deal with the above mentioned issues.
advocate the establishment of a separate State within the territory of Sri Lanka.
separate State within the territory of Sri Lanka.
as is referred to in that Article, within one month of his appointment to such office.
officer who fails to take and subscribe, or make and subscribe, an oath or affirmation as required by this paragraph".
enter upon his duties of office until he takes and subscribes an oath in terms of the Fourth Schedule, before the President.
the Gazette shall ceased to be in service or hold office."
was a mandatory provision while Counsel for the Petitioners contended that this was merely directory.
there is a bias towards command but over the years this rigid interpretation has given way to a broad andliberalapproach.
are no doubt mandatory provisions. If the are not obeyed the whole purpose of the Sixth Amendment will be brought tonought.
in service or hold office."
statement of the c and refer it to the High Court."
registered post addressed to the Registrar or to such officer.
of R.7 should be left out, and hence every effort must be made to see thatthatsub-rulealsocanbeadaptedsuitably.
legis, and in this case it is not necessary to do any more."
draftsman of the Sixth Amendment.
(3) the sanction, I, i.e the loss of office.
the path has to be taken. To my mind this is a clear indication that this last provisionisdirectoryandnotmandatory.
the oath and to a certain extent by the time limit of one month.
(c) Judicial power through Parliament to the Courts.
of the Deputy Solicitor General.
Superior Courts have always taken their oaths before the President. Let me deal first with the first part of theseargument.
Provides for the appointment of Deputy Ministers, a Secretary to the Cabinet, and a Secretary for eachoftheMinisteries.
an oath is a perfectly valid Oath.
month is a Calendar month." Burne vs. Munisamy (6), 'The Highland Tea Company of Ceylon Ltd. vs. Jinadasa (6) andDoddsvs.
into it any deprivation of a citizen's guaranteed right due to circumstances beyond his control.
estoppel against the Supreme Court. I have no hesitation in dismissing the two preliminary objections.
Prescribed in Article 126(5) is directory and not mandatory.
with problems of constitutional importance and significance it is essential that we should proceed todischargeourduty,"
uphold the Constitution of the democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka (1978).
courts, without any break, conceptually or otherwise, from the 8th day of September 1983 onwards.
approbate and reprobate at the same time in support of his proposition of estoppel.
otherwise than he represented it to be."
has first pursued and with which his present action is inconsistent" - Per Evershed M.R., (1950) 2 A.E.R. 549 at 552.
Lord Russel in Evans Vs Bartlam (10).
get some advantage to which he would not otherwise have been entitled, so as to deny him a later election to the contrary.
Law relating to Estoppel by Representation - 2nd Edition pages 6-7.
No cause of action arises upon an estoppel.
It only precludes a person from denying the of some representation previously made by him.
Kaisha vs. Dawson's Bank Ltd.(11).
party from doing so, and therefore can confer no legal title.
that there is no real title at all ." Per Farwell, L.J in. Bank of England vs. Cutler (12).
but from their original letters of appointment and that, at all relevant times, they functioned de jure.
or estoppel is based on principles of justice and equity and hence is limited in its operation.
Spencer Bower at page 140 states lucidly the limits of the doctrine.
statutory illegality of such acts, proceedings and instruments as are sought to be validated by the estoppel put forward."
to a court to allow the party bound by that obligation to be barredfrom carrying it out by the operationofanestoppel.
imposed in the public interest or "on grounds of a general public Policy."
may simply bargain away by reason of his freedom of contract", Per Lord Hailsham in Johnson vs Moraton (15).
interest. See Brooms' Legal Maxims, 10th Ed. page 481.
public or the claims of society forbid the renunciation.
a private interest, a contrary Latin maxim applies."
which the public has an interest.
not present) has been presented to the President for such removalon the ground of proved misbehavior or incapacity.
Members of Parliament and sets out full particulars of the alleged misbehavior or incapacity."
voluntary act different in quality and is far from removal.
that the salary payable to and pension entitlement of a Judge of the said Courts shall not be reduced after hisappointment.
President on the terms and conditions of Article 107 of the Constitution.
prescribed period will not nullify the petition.
of case." Burton vs. United States (18).
President by itself will not be sufficient to discharge that burden.
seems desirable, however, that I should briefly clarify my own position on some of the matters that were argued before us.
same proceedings or in any of the other cases which had been left incomplete on 8th September, 1983.
substantially complied with the law.
action against a judge. This argument appears to be of some substance.
offices at the time of the coming into operation of the Constitution This was tantamount to a letter of appointment.
making and subscribing the affirmation, set out in the Fourth, Schedule .........."
Ministries, Article 53 likewise provides that.
and subscribes the oath or makes and subscribes the affirmation set out in the Fourth Schedule."
"Article 61 makes similar provision for public officers.
officer actually function in that office. He was never a functionary in the true sense of the word.
to catch up the present situation.
and such a provision violates no provision of the Constitution.
should continue in office and those who should not.
The distinction I have sought to draw can be tested by two obvious examples. First, let me take the caseofthePresident.
Provisions, although the Sixth Amendment deals with other matters too.
not Present) has been presented to the president for such removal on the ground of proved misbehavior or incapacity."
oath, should have to vacate office?
basic concepts embodied in the Constitution.
during the period under consideration.
the judges, and not with any private right of the judges as individuals.
operate. In the case of a constitutional provision such a presumption is generally inevitable.
does not have a written Constitution.
tribunalit is equally plain that the same result cannot be achieved by conduct or inaction or acquiescence by theparties.
such constitutes a manifest usurpation of the Royal prerogative ............. "
Customs & Excise Commissioner vs. Hebson Ltd..
Society of Medical Officers of Health vs. Hope.
N.W. Gas Board vs. Manchester Corporation.
waived. It is submitted that the view of S.K. Das,j. is correct".
principle but in the manner of their application to a given set of facts. Indian State Courts have followedthisjudgement.
Vide Ram Gopal vs. National Housing Corporation,.(24), Bhaskar Moharana vs. Arjun Moharana, (25).
could be treated as valid on the principle of de facto judges. The challenge to out jurisdiction nevertheless remained.
authority we held from a time prior to 8th September which is reinforced if necessary by the appointment of15thSeptember.
office without interruption or break under the original letters of appointment finally concludes this matter.
effect of its non-compliance, it appears to me quit unnecessary to consider the question (whichwasreallyraisedbyMr.
126 are also directory and not, mandatory.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.