President Anura Kumara Dissanayake yesterday (22 January) disclosed the circumstances that led Court of Appeal President Justice Nissanka Bandula Karunaratne, who faced criticism following a Supreme Court verdict, to take pre-retirement leave.
Speaking on the Sirasa Satana political programme, the President explained that the Supreme Court ruling highlighted several “malpractices” involving Justice Karunaratne, prompting the government to draft an impeachment motion against him.
“However, the impeachment motion has not yet been presented to Parliament. I summoned him this week and offered him a choice: either take pre-retirement leave, as he is due to retire at the end of June, or face impeachment proceedings. He chose the first option. We are committed to maintaining quality and integrity in every institution as part of the mandate we received from the people. We believe in the existing system, but if someone violates it we won’t hesitate to take necessary atcions,” Dissanayake stated.
When asked whether retirement and pre-retirement leave could be used as a means to evade consequences for malpractice by officials, the President stated that if the judge has violated any laws, appropriate action will be taken even after retirement.
Justice Karunaratne will begin his pre-retirement leave at the end of January, stepping down from judicial duties on 1 February. He will remain in his official capacity until his retirement on 16 June.
The controversy arose from a Supreme Court judgment delivered on 12 December 2024 in a fundamental rights case linked to Justice Karunaratne’s proposed nomination to the Supreme Court by the previous administration. Former President Ranil Wickremesinghe had recommended Justice Karunaratne for the position, but the Constitutional Council rejected the proposal.
This led attorney B.P.M.S. Pathiratne from Veyangoda to file a fundamental rights petition, arguing that the council’s decision undermined judicial independence and violated fundamental rights.
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, led by Justice Preethi Padman Surasena, ruled against the petition, concluding that it was reasonable for the Constitutional Council to evaluate a judge’s conduct and performance before considering a promotion.
