You are on page 1of 15

CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTION.
HISTORY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW ON ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION IN SRI
LANKA.
EXTENSIONS OF THE APPLICATION OF JUDICIAL REVIEW ON
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION.
JUDICIAL REVIEW ON ADMINISTRATIVE ON ACTION IN ANOTHER
JURISDICTION.
DE MERIT OR BARRIERS WHICH LASTING ON THE APPLICATION OF
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION IN SRI LANKA.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION.

INTRODUCTION.
In general sense, just and fair administrative action is needed in every aspects of peoples
ordinary day to day activities. The cardinal phenomena roots over the administrative action is
based on celebrated well known principle as Public Trust Doctrine. According to the 1978
constitution people are sovereign1 and those power can exercise by government organs.2
Therefore from above footing, the people can to be considered as beneficiary, administrative
bodies as trustee and the constitution as trust document. Thereby administrative bodies upon
exercise of its power must be in benefit, just and fair manner towards people.
In this context by this paper author analyzed that, in one hand there have been significant
developments recently in the field of judicial review on administrative action in Sri Lanka, on
the other hand the coregent development are suppressed by primfacie defect upholding in the
arena of rule of law and contemporary judicial precedent which is spelt out from legal
pronouncement.
In this sense demarcation of the Administrative Law is essential. In one extent it is
encompasses law relating administrative matter and another extent postulates the control of
the governmental power.3 In this way rule of law on face of recode elucidates of every things
must be done accordance with law. Therefore in another way around it refers the
establishment of limited form of the government.4
The similar result can to be observed upon the Judicial Review on Administrative
Action(review the action) when it spontaneously work through in either form of
effectiveness and progress manner. There by it interconnects the Administrative Law and
Rule of law.5 The action(commission/omission) of the administrative body/executive body
when itself subject to the review by judiciary can be called as judicial review of
administrative action.6
1 Article 3 of the 1978 constitution In the Republic of Sri Lanka sovereignty is in the people and is
alienable. Sovereignty includes the powers of government, fundamental rights and the franchise.
2

Article 4 of the 1978 constitution the sovereignty of the people shall be exercised and enjoyed in the
following mannerThe legislative power of the people shall be exercised by parliament, consisting of
elected of representatives representatives of the people and by the people at a Referendum.
(b) The executive power of the People, including the defence of Sri Lanka, shall be exercised by the
President of Republic elected by the people.
(c) The judicial power of the people shall be exercised by parliament through courts, tribunals and
institution created and established by law except in regard to matters relating to the privileges,
immunities and powers of parliament and of it members , where in the judicial power of people may
be exercised directly by Parliament according to law.

3 H.W.R Wade and Forsyth, Administrative Law, (10th ed) Oxford University Press.
4 A.V Diecy in The Law of The Constitution.
5Per Lord Hoffmann in R(Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary of state for the
Environment, Transport and the Regions(2001)2 All ER 929,981

Nonetheless when trace back the reason why this reviewing the action inserted in the scope
law that, this principle spontaneously produce the rule of law, protect the people from abuse
of power and prescribes the manner on administrative action.

HISTORY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE


ACTION IN SRI LANKA.
In Sri Lanka no express provision dealing that judiciary has the power to judicial review on
administrative action. Nevertheless it come to know from which authority having the power
to issuing writ and redress for fundamental rights. Because writ and fundamental rights is
basic factors for seeking judicial review on administrative action. In this regard according to
the history Ceylon charter,7 Ceylon Charter of justice in 1833 and section 46 of court
ordinance empowered the Supreme Court to issue writs. Nonetheless according to 1978
constitution writ jurisdiction empowered to Court of appeal8 and Provincial High Court9 and
fundamental rights jurisdiction vested with Supreme Court. 10 Despite in early period writ was
granted according to the English Law.11
6 John alder,Palgrave macmillan law masters- constitutional and administrative
law,7th ed palgrave macmillan press.p-309
7 Article 82 of the Ceylon Charter.
8 Article 140 of the 1978 constitution-. Subject to the provisions of the
Constitution, the Court of Appeal shall have full power and authority to inspect
and examine the records of any Court of First Instance or tribunal or other
institution and grant and issue, according to law, orders in the nature of writs of
certiorari, prohibition, procedendo, mandamus and quo warranto against the
judge of any Court of First Instance or tribunal or other institution or any other
person :
9 Article 154 (p) (4)- Every such High Court shall have jurisdiction to issue,
according to law (a) orders in the nature of habeas corpus, in respect of
persons illegally detained within the Province ; and (b) order in the nature of
writs of certiorari, prohibition, procedendo, mandamus and quo warranto against
any person exercising, within the Province, any power under (i) any law ; or (ii)
any statutes made by the Provincial Council established for that Province, in
respect of any matter set out in the Provincial Council List.
10 Article 126(1) of 1978 constitution-The Supreme Court shall have sole and
exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine any question relating to the
infringement or imminent infringement by executive or administrative action of
any fundamental right or language right declared and recognized by Chapter III
or Chapter IV
11 Abdul Thasim v Edmord Rodigro-(1947) 48 NLR 121.

In the light of contemporaneous approach in respect judicial review on administrative action


shall not restricted in some factors or heads. 12 If it is happened protection of the citizen
against the abuse is obvious one. However it is evident from the history that in early period
judicial review on administrative action limited in reliance of orthodox grounds. It is meant
that when any administrative action brought before the court on this circumstances the
judiciary willing review the action upon the fulfillment of those ground only not in wider
sense . Such grounds are

Ultra vires
Un reasonableness
Proportionality
Irrationality

ULTRA VIRES.
Ultra vires is the so long ground which is being entertained upon the reviewing the action as
traditional ground13, based on juristic basis and central principal of administrative law.14 The
simple preposition about the ground that when administrative bodies exercise the power in
excess or exercise the power without jurisdiction such act is subjected to review and declare
null and void. Therefore it consider the intention of the legislature 15 and control discretionary
power. In line with the matter in Sri Lankan judiciary spelt many sound out comes of
pronouncement in relied with ultra vires.16
UN REASONABLENESS.
This ground considers the relevant and irrelevant consideration. When the action consider
irrelevant such act declared as void. This significance approach was established on English
law in wendesbury case .17 The same standard uphold on reviewing the action in several cases
in Sri Lanka.
12 Lord Diplocks Formal statement on Judicial Review- Lord Hoffman said in
lecture-(1997) 32 Ir. Jur .49 at 53
13UAT Udayanganie, Article on Ensuring Good Administration through the
development of judicial review in Sri Lanka p-183 para 3
14 H.W.R Wade and C.F Forsyth ,Administrative Law ,10 Edition (Oxford University Press2009), p.30

15 Chamila Thalagala, The Doctrine of Ultra Vires and Judicial Review of


Administrative Action, Bar Association Journal of Sri Lanka, Vol. XVII, 2011
16Kotakadeniya V Kodituwakku 2000(2) SLR 175, Walter Leo v The Land
Commissioner (1955) 57 NLR 178

PROPORTIONALITY.
It might fitly referable that proportionality is a latest ground and dealing with decree of
proportionate with imposing administrative action and public rights and interest.18 when it
exceed such act is void. Therefore this principle would be an effective to examine of action
taken by the executive and ensuring such act should be proportionate and adherence to
necessary to individuals interests.19 In Sri Lanka this approach availed in Environmental
Foundation Ltd Colombo V Urban Development Authority20 and other cases21. This ground is
summed up in phrase not taking sledge hammer to crack a nut.22
ILLEGALITY, IRRATIONALITY, PROCEDURAL IMPROPRIETY.
Illegality refers the observation over the action legal or illegal, irrationality examines the
reasonable rationale and procedural impropriety considers the proper procedure. This grounds
were established GCHQ23 case and followed in Sri Lanka too.
DEFECT AND CRITICISM OVER THE ORTHODOX GROUNDS.
Having reminded above grounds when goes to deeper manner in to current position, it can be
noted that these grounds have defects heavily having criticism. special attention on ultra
vires, it can be used for reviewing only limited area and struggle balancing between non
complete elimination of discretion and granting unfettered power 24. This grounds under
criticism of scholar25 and based on juridical review.

17 Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v Wednesbury Corporation[1948] 1


KB 223
18 H.A Barnett and M. Diamantides, Public Law Study Guide,(London: University
Of London Press-2004 ),p.227
19 R. Thomas, Legitimate Expectation and Proportionality, (Oxford: Hart
publishing- 2000), p.77
20 S.C.F.R. Application No.47/2004
21 Premarathne V UGC (1993)3 SLR 395, Caldera V University of Peradeniya (C.A
Writ No. 572/2004), Niedra Fernado V Ceylon Tourist Board and Others (2002)2
SLR 69
22 Lord Diplock in R V Goldsimith (1983) 1 WLR 151 at 155
23 Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1983] UKHL 6
24 Padfiled V Minister of Agriculture , Fisheries and food (1986) QB 716
25 Christopher Forsyth, Judicial Review and the constitution , (Hart Publishing2000), p. 287

Nonetheless pertaining to unreasonableness only considers relevant/irrelevant consideration


rather than consideration upon the merit of the decision and not exhaustive ground for
review.26 Despite the proportionality failed within context controlling discretionary power.27
In this sense all orthodox grounds are being defect in case of protection of the individual
rights against establishment of national mega development. 28 The orthodox grounds on itself
restricted particular fulfillment of requirements within its four corners and not reflect no any
rights based approach.

EXTENSIONS OF THE APPLICATION OF JUDICIAL REVIEW


ON ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION.
On the basis of above reasoning the reviewing the action restricted by parameters which are
laid down in the orthodox grounds. Though this short outs have been debated struggle point
on this application. Thus in order to eradicate those barriers the judiciary restore the tools as
judicial activism and judicial development.
The judicial activism remarks that the law want to be survived it should be complied with
contemporaneous approach. Therefore the judiciary not only relied on the oldest approach
they liberalized itself and incorporates the fair and justiciable principle in to their approach
and judge not relied on the statutes they awarded the decision in just and equitable manner
(judge made law).It turn to be focused on the judicial development that it removed the detract
on law and proper apply of sustainable, procedural law in suitable for current position.
It is well evident that in Sri Lanka extensions of review has been taken placed in Heather
Mundy V Centre Environmental Authority and others 29, Ceylon Tobacco Company V
Minister of Health30 and Environmental Foundation Ltd Colombo V Urban Development
Authority31 cases.

26per Lord Scarman in R V Secretary of State for the Environment, ex.p


.Nottinghamshire Country Council-(1986)A.C.240.
27 UAT Udayanganie, Article on Ensuring Good Administration through the
development of judicial review in Sri Lanka p-185 para 5
28 Ibid p-183 para 4
29 SC Appeal 58/2003, CA Application 688/2002
30 C.A 336/ 2012 (writ)
31 Supra note 20

EXTENSION BY MUNDHY CASE.


So far Sri Lankan judiciary review the action by orthodox grounds and writ basis.
Nonetheless this case was the starting point to incorporated the new approach. In this case
review the action up held in manner of constitutional, Public Trust Doctrine, natural justice
concepts.
In this case the administrative action (construction of southern express way by RDA)
reviewed in accordance with article 12(1) of the 1978 constitution.32 Hence court ruled that if
any administrative action infringed the rights which are guaranteed by constitution , such act
is subjected to review. Thereby it shows that by this case judiciary started the review based on
constitution.
Despite another extension has been placed over in adherence with Public Trust Doctrine. 33
This doctrine want to be scrutinized read with Article 3 34 and 435 of the 1978 constitution.
Thus, by this doctrine people are the beneficiary, administrative bodies are the trustee and
constitution is trust document. Thereby according to this case court ruled that administrative
body want to perform fair and just manner towards people and when its breached such act is
subjected to review.
In administrative law natural justice is well defined concept which comprises two
fundamental rules of fair procedure; that the man may not be judge in his own cause and
mans defense must always be fairly heard. 36 The first clear denial of the rule of natural
justice occurred in Nakkuda Ali V Jayaratne. 37 Nevertheless in this case extension of review
made on the basis of recognized natural justice and pronounced that when natural justice
breached such act is subjected to review.
It is important to notice that in this case the right based approach was analyzed and review
basis extended. It is meant that in Sri Lanka in no any provision of statutes or constitution
expressly refers the right based approach. However while read with Article 140, 38 17,39 126
(3)40 and 126(4)41 of 1978 constitution the right based approach can be gathered. The plain
meaning of the right based approach indicates that review the action in line with rights.
Thereby Article 140 denotes that court of appeal shall have writ jurisdiction. So writ is the
32 Article 12 (1) of 1978 of constitution- All persons are equal before the law and are
entitled to the equal protection of the law

33 Per Weeramantry j in Hungary V Slovokia- ICJ GL 92 (1997)


34 Supra note 3
35 Supra note 4
36 Marshal , Natural Justice; Jackson, Natural Justice (2 nd edition); Flick Natural
Justice(2nd edition)
37 (1951) AC 66
38 Supra note 8

general remedy cast upon the review the action. By combining Article 17 ,126(3) and 126 (4)
speaks about, the supreme court has the jurisdiction to determined fundamental rights
violation, upon writ sued when fundamental rights issues arises it should be hand over to
supreme court and it should be decided in just and equitable manner. Thus upon the
codification of aforesaid matter the review can be made on the right based approach. It is
witnessed from Saleem Masroof J denotation 42 that the right based approach followed in
several case which was established by Mundhy case. In some cases this right based approach
extended with natural justice in Dissanayke V Kaleel 43 and Rajakaruna V University of
Rhuna.44
EXTNSION BY TOBACCO CASE.
This case is the best example how far Sri Lankan judiciary extent the review the action by
incorporated the international convention, applied liberal interpretation and unequivocal role
by judicial activism.
Before this case the judicial review on administrative action only relied on the basis of
municipal law(statutes interpretation). Petitioner of this case sought the remedy based on the
ground of unreasonable and disproportionate. However Anil Gooneratne J granted the verdict
by following extension on review the action that, administrative action (Regulation made by
Health Minister- including 80% pictorial warning ) not only review based on the statutes
where it derived the power, in this occasion it should be reviewed adherence to the
39 Article 17 of the 1978 constitution- Every person shall be entitled to apply to
the Supreme Court, as provided by Article 126, in respect of the infringement or
imminent infringement, by executive or administrative action, of a fundamental
right to which I such person is entitled under the provisions of this Chapter.
40 Article 126 (3) of the constitution- Where in the course of hearing in the
Court of Appeal into an application for orders in the nature of a writ of habeas
corpus, certiorari, prohibition, procedendo, mandamus or quo warranto, it
appears to such Court that there is prima facie evidence of an infringement or
imminent infringement of the provisions of Chapter III or Chapter IV by a party to
such application, such Court shall forthwith refer such matter for determination
by the Supreme Court.
41 Article 126(4) of the constitution- The Supreme Court shall have power to
grant such relief or make such directions as it may deem just and equitable in
the circumstance in respect of any petition or reference referred to in paragraphs
(2) and (3) of this Article or refer the matter back to the Court of Appeal if in its
opinion there is no infringement of a fundament right or language right.
42 Hon. Justice Saleem Marsoof, The Spanding Canvas of Judicial Review, The
Bar Association Law Journal,(Bar Association of Sri Lanka-2005),Vol.XI,p.18
43 (1993), 2 SLR 135
44 Court of Appeal Minutes of 19th July 2004

international covenants and instruments, applied and interpreted the statutes in liberal way
(legible printing including-pictorial warning too).
Therefore it can be expressed that this case was the turning point where Sri Lankan judiciary
started the journey in review the action not only line with municipal statute but also
international law which is complied article 27(15) of 1978 constitution.45
EXTENSION BY ENVIRONMENTAL FOUNDATION LTD V URBAN DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY.
This is the land mark case where judicial activism interplay with judicial development each
others. So far review the action has been extended. In deed this is a case where expansion of
review the action up held in wider sense and judiciary move the journey with new path.
Locus standi stand for who have rights to sue or vindicate before the court law. Ab intio
Locus standi was extended in Sriyani Silva V Iddamalgoda OIC. 46 On the other hand in this
case also expansion of Locus standi occurred on the basis of question of/sufficient interest
that resulted on extension on reviewing the action. Therefore it pointed out that whoever
having in the interest in case of public can file the case. 47 Thereby in this case
NGO(petitioner) accepted that who had interest over the public..
Extension of the Locus standi automatically transferred to the concept called Public Interest
Litigation. Hence it indicates that upon the welfare of the public when it mingled with
interest, whereas it has breached or it is going to breached upon the interest of public any one
can sue. Thus in this case review the administrative action admitted the public interest
litigation. In Sri Lanka mostly public interest litigation filed in the name of environmental
issues.48
In this case upon the review the action Public Trust Doctrine also played the major role. In
fact by this case the expansion of locus standi interconnected the Public Trust Doctrine and
Public Interest litigation. Therefore review the action stand on own leg in new dimension. In
addition in this case review the action rooted in a way of constitutional review upon the
restriction over relative rights under article 14 (a) of 1978 constitution as freedom of
expression. The court in this case exposed that when restriction to the relative rights placed in
un reasonable and disproportionate such act is subjected to review and declare null and void.
45Article 27 (15) of 1978 constitution- The State shall promote international
peace, security and co-operation, and the establishment of a just and equitable
international economic and social order, and shall endeavour to foster respect for
international law and treaty obligations in dealings among nations.
46 SC No 471/2000 (FR)
47 Premadasa V Wijewardana and Others- (1991)1 SLR 333
48 Vasudeva Nanayakkara V N.K Choksy and 30 Others-(SC. [FR] 209/2007,
Supreme Court Minutes 21st July 2008), Sugathpala Mendis and Others V
Kumaratunge and Others (SC. [FR] 352/2007, Supreme Court Minutes 8 th
October 2008), Bulankulama V Secretary, Minister of Industrial Devolpment([2000] 3 SLR 243)

ANOTHER EXTENSION ON JUDICIAL REVIEW ON ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION .


Legitimate expectation is another expansion on review the action. Legitimate expectation
refers that a reasonable anticipation over the administrative action when such anticipation is
violated(commission/omission) such action is subjected to review the action.
In early period the court not willing to recognized the legitimate expectation. It was reflected
in Laub v A.G.49 even though later on several cases legitimate expectation used as tool for
review the action.50
On this part it can be referred that the extension of judicial review on administrative action
has been occurred is an obvious one. It worthily to codified that such expansion is taken place
under the heads of Public Trust Doctrine, Constitutional, People Sovereignty, Right Based
Approach and following indigenous method in Legitimate Expectation, Locus Standi And
Public Interest Litigation.

JUDICIAL REVIEW ON ADMINISTRATIVE ON ACTION IN


ANOTHER JURISDICTION.
UNITED KINGDOM POSITION.
In early period the judicial review on administrative action was established under orthodox
grounds. However later on when United Kingdom became the member of the European union
major verification was taken place in administrative law in United Kingdom. By bay of
article 41 European union Charter of fundamental rights declared that good administration is
a fundamental rights51 and when the United Kingdom accessed the European Convention on
Human Rights,on this point only United Kingdom started to review the administrative action
by right based approach in express way. This approach encompassed the natural justice. In
Interpoc V Commission52 the principle of good administration was established.
49 (1995) 2 SLR 88
50 Gunawardana V Perera (1997) 2 SLR 222, Mervil V De silva (2001) 2 SLR
11, Wickkramarathne V Jayrathne- (2001) 3 SLR 161, Danapala V Dissnayake( 1997) 1 SLR 400 Sannasgala V The University of Kelaniya and Members of The
University Senate- (1991) 2 SLR 193, and Naglingam V University of Jaffna and
others-(C.A Writ Application No.515 /2008
51 MarrgetValaKiristjansottir, Good Administration as a Fundamental Right,
Icelandic Review of Politics and Administration Vol.9 Issue 1, 2013, p.237-255
52 (2003) ECR I- 2125

Nevertheless in this point correctly to refer that United Kingdom extended the review the
action in wider sense in heads of orthodox grounds, Public Trust Doctrine, Pubic Interest
Litigation, Locus Standi, Legitimate Expectation and Right Based Approach. By contrast in
United Kingdom there is stopping point that upon the judicial review on administrative
action the judiciary exercise the review on the consideration and within the ambit of
supremacy of parliament.
AUSTRALIAN POSITION.
The establishment of Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act53 confer the power to review to
tribunals. The Administrative Decisions(Judicial Review) Act54 extends the scope of judicial
review to investigate functions and other conduct engaged in for the purpose of a making
decision and codifies the grounds of judicial review. Such grounds are administrative
improper exercise of power,55 relevant and irrelevant consideration,56 ulterior purpose,57
inflexible policy,58 unreasonableness,59 un certainty,60 natural justice,61 no evidence
ground,62and fraud.63
FRANCE POSITION.
The French may claim credit for evolving the machinery capable of implementing it in
modern conditions in review the action.64 Its briefly stated that in France the jurisdiction to
review is empowered to the administrative court and exercised the power in aid of persons
whose interests are going to violated or whose rights have been violated.65
53 91 of 1975 (Cwth).
54 59 of 1977 (cwth).
55 The Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 59 of 1977, s 5(1) (e)
56 Ibid,s 5(2) (b)
57 Ibid, s 5(2) (c)
58 Ibid, s 5 (2) (f)
59 Ibid, s 5 (2) (g)
60 Ibid, s 5(2) (h)
61 Ibid, s 5(1) (a)
62 Ibid, s 5 (1) (h)
63 Ibid, s 5 (1) (g)
64 N. Ghosh, comparative Administrative Law (Calcutta,1918) p.641-42(Tagroe
Law Lectures)

DE MERIT OR BARRIERS WHICH LASTING ON THE


APPLICATION OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE
ACTION IN SRI LANKA.
According to the application on judicial review on administrative action in Sri Lanka its
figure out that expansion of this application can not be keep in sustainable one. The main
factors are identified as the lacking character on rule of law and inconsistence of judicial
precedent. Under these factors the following can be considered..

RULE OF LAW.
Constitutionalism is the one of the pillar for rule of law. However Sri Lankan constitution
having many defect in itself. Fundamental rights is the one of the basic elements of
constitution. In Sri Lanka the fundamental rights are not comprises more rights compare to
another nations and the rights which are guaranteed by constitution mostly being the relative
rights. Thereby it can be restricted. In this sense the Sri Lankan review system known as
constitutional review system. Therefore when the judiciary started to review the action based
on rights it faces difficulties on wider sense its applications. Because the review the action
based on rights restricted within the four corners of constitution.
Besides the success point on the constitutionalism that substantial mater should be refer in
express way. Thus judicial review in administrative action is a important element. But in Sri
Lanka this element not refer in express way. Therefore it can be construed only from Article
140,66154(p),6717,68126(3)69 and 126 (4)70 that the judiciary has the power to review and that
on basis of right based approach, therefore writ and fundamental rights are basic criteria for
the judicial review and respectively these jurisdiction hand over to court of appeal(writisland wide) provincial high court(writ-within its province) and supreme court(fundamental
rights). In this mater there is the chance can arise to reluctant to follow the right based
approach because it is not refer in express manner.
On the other hand the another defect in this review on the basis of people sovereignty is
arisen from lacking character of separation of power. In Sri Lanka the sovereignty is in the

65 Radhakant Nayak-Administrative Justice in india,p-30


66 Supra note 8
67 Supra note 9
68 Supra note 39
69 Supra note 40
70 Supra note 41

hands of the people71 and it can be exercised by the government bodies.72 thereby it shows
about separation of power. However in Sri Lanka it is well experienced that in practice most
occurrences the executive body interfere into another bodies. Therefore it on the face of
record affects the separation of power then it resulted as struggle point on review the action
on the basis of people sovereignty.
The another de merit arises from the defect on independence of judiciary in Sri Lanka. It is
evident from the history that the independence of judiciary always undermined by the
executive and legislative action and political influence. For this the best example that the
removal of the former Chief Justice Shirani Bandarnayake.73 Hence the another challenging
matter on review the action is exclusion clause or immunity clause. 74 So in this movement the
judiciary can not review the action.75
It is interesting to noted that hand over the fundamental rights and writ jurisdiction in
separate sectors also found as barriers on review the action. Generally writ and fundamental
rights jurisdiction respectively empowered to court of appeal and supreme court. 76 In two
circumstances the supreme court shall exercise the court of appeal jurisdiction under Article
126(3) and first Amendment to the 1978 constitution.77 According to first amendment speaks
about parliament by law shall transferred jurisdiction of court of appeal to supreme court.
Though indeed it impossible that in all circumstances the parliament shall hand over the
court of appeal jurisdiction to supreme court.
Having remind the aforesaid matters, it can be stated that in Sri Lanka one person can not
obtain remdy as writ and redress for violation of fundamental rights in spontaneously. Thus
he want to get both two remedy he want to files separate case in separate court. Thereby this
71 Supra note 1
72 Supra note 2
73 http:// groundviews.org/2013/01/10/a-legal-primer-the-impeachment-of-thechief-justice-in-Sri-Lanka/
74 Article 35 (1) of 1978 0f constitution-While any person holds office as President, no
proceedings shall he instituted or continued against him in any court or tribunal in
respect of anything done or omitted to be done by him either in his official or private
capacity.

75 Senarath V Chandrika Bandarnayake Kumaratunga, SCFR 503/2005.


76 Supra note 8 and 10
77 Supra note 40 and First Amendment to the 1978 constitution- Article 140 of the
Constitution of the Democratic Socialist of Sri Lanka is hereby amended by the insertion
immediately at the end of that Article of the following proviso:- Provided that Parliament
may by law provide that in any such category of cases as may be specified in such law,
the jurisdiction conferred on the Court of Appeal by the preceding provisions of this
Article shall be exercised by the Supreme Court and not by the Court of Appeal

defect produces the expansive on money consideration, consuming time and delay for
verdict.
The another struggle point in judicial review of administrative action is there is no wider
power with regard redress. Neither supreme court or court of appeal have the power to issue
the mandate ,order rather than issuing writ and redress for violation for fundamental rights
towards administrative bodies. But in this aspect Indian Supreme Court has the power to
issuing writ, order, direction, and redress for fundamental rights.78
IN CONSISTENT JUDICIAL PRECEDENT.
Judicial precedent is the one of the mechanism where the judicial review of administrative
action can be kept in survive and produce the just and fair manner. When the judicial
precedent started to contradict within itself its mean not constant uphold of judicial
pronouncement, in this occasion that defect ultimately affect the judicial review of
administrative action. There have been number of occasion witnessed that Sri Lankan
judiciary awarded in consistent of judicial precedent. Example for this one is in
Bandarnayake v de silva Alwis and others79 the court recognized the locus standi and ruled
that court can admit the sue in the name of public interest which is filed by any citizen. Even
though in Duraiyappa v fernado the locus standi was restricted.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION.


Upon this above analysis it can be concluded that in early period the Sri Lankan judiciary
followed orthodox grounds as restricted parameters in judicial review on administrative
action. Nonetheless later by way of judicial activism and judicial development the expansion
has been taken placed in the heads of Public Trust Doctrine, Constitutional, People
Sovereignty, Locus Standi ,Public Interest Litigation and Legitimate Expectation.
Therefore nowadays Sri Lankan judiciary move on the track on its own legs and it passionate
in new dimension . Namely Sri Lanka has unique approach on Legitimate Expectation,
Public Interest Litigation and Public Trust Doctrine 80. Hence Sri Lankan approach called as
free judicial review on administrative action. Because unlike United kingdom, Sri Lanka
not bound to consider the supremacy parliament upon its review. On the other hand Sri
Lankan judicial review on administrative action still not attained the absolute substance due
to defect cast on rule of law and in consistence of the judicial pronouncement.

78 Article 32 (2) of the Indian constitution-(2) The Supreme Court shall have
power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of
habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever
may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this
Part
79 69 NLR 265
80 UAT Udayanganie, Article on Ensuring Good Administration through the
development of judicial review in Sri Lanka p-186 para 5.

Thus upon this matter it can be recommended that enhance the rule of law, follow the
judicial precedent, refer the right based approach in express manner , added the good
administration principle as rights as like United Kingdom, combine both writ, fundamental
rights and hand over that jurisdiction to one judicial body and extended the jurisdiction to
issue the mandate and order towards administrative bodies.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.
H. W .R WADE AND C.F.F . FORSYTH -ADMINISTRATIVE LAW-TENTH
EDITION .OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS.
G. L. PEIRIS- ESSAYS ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW IN SRI LANKA-SECOND
EDITION-STAMFORD LAKE PUBLICATION.
JOHN ALDER-PALGRAVE MACMILLAN LAW MASTERS CONSTITUTIONAL
AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW-SEVENTH EDITION.
G.L . PEIRIS- RECENT DEVELOPMENT IN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW-FIRST
EDITION SARVODAYA BOOK PUBLISHING SERVICES.
RADHANT NAYAK-ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE IN INDIA-FIRST EDITIONSAGE PUBLICATION.
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTIC REPUBLIC OF
SRI LANKA