SHORT STORIES -1:
SOLIDARITY POWER OF THE SUPREME COURTS
When I was
in Australia, one Libyan person became friend of mine, and one day he was
talking about the judicial system of Libya.
He explained that, people believe judicial system is corruptive and
biased to their personal political impressions and maintained closed
relationship with eminent politicians and upper class people. They were full of biased for prestige, high positions and
promotions, money and property, and so on.
They are less disciplined with human errors. People reluctant to go to Supreme Courts on
any political discrimination, because people believe it will not work. I explained it as a consequence of inherited
slavery bondage rooted in the total social system. This will push any nation in to hell. Though I am a Sri Lankan, I explained him
the excellent state of the Indian judiciary system. In Sri Lanka, during early years of last
decade the people had no confidence in Supreme Court due to some acts of then
Chief Justice. The judges in the Indian
Supreme Courts are highly educated law experts. They have qualified with post graduate level
higher degrees, and have acquainted with higher level law research. Getting a position in Supreme Court in India
is highly competitive, it is not easy.
I gave him a
example of such talent, braveness and impartiality of Indian Supreme
Court. Indian Supreme Court concerns
about the Dignity of the Nation, not their personal privileges.
“In
1965, then President of India while he was delivering a lecture before Indian
Law League, he argued that should he as the President of India always perform
his powers, functions and duties according to the advice of the Cabinet of
Ministers in India”. This statement
gave high attention to the people of India.
People took this statement to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court
decided and declared the President of
India should exercise his powers, functions and duties according to the advice
of the Cabinet of Ministers as he did up to may in 1965, according to
convention. Later in 1970s, Prime
Minister Indira Gandhi amended the Indian Constitution including following
sentence: “President of India in
exercising his powers, functions and duties shall act on the advice of the
Cabinet of Ministers”. After that, the
problem of that issue was ended. I
attempt to appreciate braveness and wishful wise decisions taken by them making
and demonstrating power of the Indian Supreme Court.
SHORT STORIES-2: LESIONS FROM SRI LANKA CONSTITUTION OF 1972
Morning we
were waiting to go to chena. Amma had
sent Morizi to buy sugar and betel stuffs for us and com. Today he was too delayed to come. Suddenly he was running to us talking about something, he was
seemed to be fizzled but few words were
heard by Burampi mama. Burampi mama
asked, “Morizi who is mad and crack brained President, who told you all these
nonsense”. Morizi explained what people
were talking around the coffee shop this morning. He explained how people
gathered at the shop blamed President as he was mad and crack, naming he as
“Kundalla” and follower of Samanalio. “
It is very serious my son, if a President with executive powers become mad and
crack brained, it is very serious, everything will be tangled, it is bad time
we are getting now” Burampi mama explained everything very calmly. I had before this heard some people were
talking about this issue last evening. I
think I should write something about this issue today.
No any
constitution in the nations of this world give powers to Executive President to
dissolve the Parliament of the people’s representatives which has come to power
for six years, breaking the law of the Constitutions. The Constitutions include formal [in
accordance with rules, customs and convention] and formative[giving or tending
to give shape to the prestige of the position] parts in the provisions which
includes the formal nature of the powers, functions and duties of the
President. But in Constitutions
attempts are made to enact provisions to confederate and come into alliance:
formal powers of the President as head executive always confederate with an
another body in the executive according to the provisions made by the Constitution, by its series of
proceeding laws in the next chapters. In
the preceding[proceeding] chapters, Constitutions enact rules to control and
guide the President advising him how to exercise his formal/formative powers,
functions and duties. These parts of
provisions are most important than the provisions with list of the formal
powers of the President. I suggest
attention of Supreme Court is needed to this argument. More valid
examples can be drawn from Sri Lanka Constitutions in 1972 and 1978 [including
amendments] on the systems of conferring or vesting formal powers to a Head of
Executive in a State, and enacting forgoing conditional rules for head of
Executive guiding him in which manner he should exercise his powers, provided
by the Constitutions. The President
should exercise his powers as indicated and elaborate by the proceeding laws of
the Constitution.,,
We can learn
a good lesion from Sri Lanka Constitution of 1972. In this Constitution:
CHAPTER
V11
THE
PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC
Section: 19. There shall be a President of
the Republic Sri Lanka who is the Head of the
State.
20. The
President is the Head of the Executive and the Commander-in-Chef of the armed
forces.
21. The
President has the following powers and functions:-
[a] he declares
war and peace;
[b] he summons,
prorogues and dissolves the National State assembly;
[please compare
this power with the power of President sited in the Constitution No.33 in the
19th amendment about the power of President to dissolve the
parliament. This is only a formal power but it can be guided by another
provision in the Constitution giving rules how to exercise this power. Therefore
this power mentioned in Constitution No.33 in the 19th amendmend
become nominal statement.]
You have to
follow the powers of President given in subsections [c], [d],[e], [f],[g], and
[h] of section 21 of Constitution 1972.
Please follow the
massive executive powers vested in the President in sections: 22., 41, 54, 91,
92 [2], 94 [2], 95[1], 96, 98[3], 100, 103, 108, 111, 112, 122, 125[3] of the
Constitution of Sri Lanka, 1972. One can
conceive looking at these powers of the President Late William Gopallawa that he
was the first executive President of Sri Lanka.
Courts should pay attention to this as this is the nature of
Constitutions. Please note carefully
all these executive powers were debaunched or debased by an another sentence
given in proceeding section of the Constitution of 1972. In this constitution Section: 27 enacted
that:
Section: 27. The President shall always except as
otherwise provided by the constitution, act on the advice of the Prime Minister
or of such other minister whom the Prime minister may have given authority to
advice the President on any particular function assigned to that minister.
Please note this is the nature of the
Constitutions. Given normal powers to
President in a normal declaration in one site of the Constitution become enactive
after having the same Constitutions provided decisive rules in provisions
showing the manner in which that power should be executed.
I
suggest more attention and weight should give to Constitution No.70 which has
attempted to control and has reduced the power of President sited in
Constitution No. 33 in the 19th amendment.
In
accordance with the above vision, concentration and arguing on a single line,
neglecting and discriminating the major conceptions and consistency of the all
the provisions through the Constitution will lead to grow arbitrary and
dictatorship in a country pushing our nation in to hell. We should not let this to happen again. This attempt harmfully discriminate
proceeding active provisions and laws in Constitution. This process discriminate and violate the
sovereignty of the people in Sri Lanka
and, I suppose this system should not be
practiced pulling nation to dark hell.
We should accept the consistency of any law volume on any issue until
have gone through active lines of flow of the base of concepts.
Conceptive
and formal expression in establishing a Head of Executive in a state by its
Constitution always give guiding rules to the Head of Executive in a State indicating how he shall exercise
his normative powers. These ruling
active provisions giving in a Constitution strictly control president’s
arbitrary and personal biased actions against to the sovereignty and democracy
of the people in the State. These
guiding rules, laws and provisions in a Constitution of any State control the
dictatorship or dictatorial and despotic power of the President securing
democracy and sovereignty of the people in a State. In any country justice system needs to be
more rational, powerful, and non-biased with human errors to control the
tendencies of a President or a ruler in a state turning and moving towards
despotic power overthrowing the laws in the Constitutions.
