By Aruliniyan Mahalingam
For six years, a woman from the Pommaveli area of Jaffna — known to police and lawyers alike as one of the district’s most persistent narcotics dealers — had walked in and out of courtrooms, exploiting successive bail hearings to remain free and, according to legal sources, continue trafficking. She had been arrested in June 2020 for possession of 1.475 grams of heroin. Six years of adjournments, applications, and legal manoeuvring produced no conviction.
On May 21, 2026, that changed.
A newly appointed Jaffna High Court judge, A.G. Alexraja, sentenced the woman to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 100,000, with an additional 12 months of simple imprisonment if the fine was not paid.
Seven days later, Judge Alexraja was transferred.
His posting to the Jaffna High Court was terminated with immediate effect. He has been reassigned to the Badulla High Court, roughly 350 kilometers away in the island's central highlands. No public explanation has been given. High Court judges in Sri Lanka are ordinarily expected to serve at a station for three to four years before transfer.
The transfer has provoked outrage within Jaffna’s legal fraternity. Lawyers who spoke with Jaffna Monitor described it as an instance of political interference in the judiciary, arguing that the move was driven not by any administrative failing on the judge’s part, but by his aggressive handling of narcotics-related cases and his willingness to scrutinise state action.
Lawyers are reportedly planning a continuous strike in protest.
"The judiciary exists to question the government when necessary," one lawyer told Jaffna Monitor. "Even governments can make mistakes, and it is the duty of judges to intervene and ask questions under the law."
THE GOVERNOR'S COMPLAINT
According to legal sources, the formal mechanism preceding the transfer was a letter sent by the Governor of the Northern Province to higher authorities, alleging that Judge Alexraja was impeding the functioning of the state machinery.
The specific case cited in the complaint, according to sources familiar with the matter, involved a writ petition filed by Point Pedro Urban Council Chairman Douglas De Paul and council member Sivalingam Ponnambalam against a provincial inquiry initiated by the Governor over decisions taken by the council, including the relocation of a public market.
On April 27, 2026, Judge Alexraja, after issuing notice to the respondents through counsel under Rule 2 of the Court of Appeal Rules, granted a two-week interim order temporarily halting the inquiry proceedings. During the hearings, lawyers for the petitioners argued that the inquiry was politically motivated and pointed to a social media post by Member of Parliament Rajeevan Jeyachandramoorthy, who had commented on the gazette notification before its official publication.
During subsequent proceedings, however, respondents argued that the post had been based on a Sinhala-language version of the gazette notice that had already circulated online and was later translated using Google Translate, rather than on any confidential advance release of the document.
On May 18, 2026, Judge Alexraja vacated the interim order and dismissed the petition, ultimately ruling in favour of the administration. Legal sources said the interim order — which temporarily halted the provincial inquiry process for roughly three weeks — nevertheless became a central point of contention and was later cited as one of the factors behind the complaint that preceded his transfer.
Lawyers who spoke with Jaffna Monitor said that if there were concerns about the legal soundness of any of Judge Alexraja's rulings, the established remedy would ordinarily have been to challenge those decisions through the appellate courts, including the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court.
"The proper mechanism for addressing disagreements with judicial decisions is the appeals process," one lawyer said. "When dissatisfaction with a judgment is addressed through efforts to influence a judge's posting rather than through the courts, it raises serious concerns about judicial independence and risks creating a troubling precedent."
Several lawyers stressed that judicial transfers fall within the authority of the Judicial Service Commission. However, they argued that any perception that external political or administrative pressure may have played a role in a transfer linked to a judicial decision could undermine public confidence in the independence of the judiciary.
MINISTER'S ALLEGED ROLE
Credible legal sources told Jaffna Monitor that Minister Bimal Rathnayake, the NPP’s coordinator for the Northern Province, was perceived by sections of the legal community as having been involved in discussions surrounding the transfer.
Sources further alleged that a retired judge, whom some members of the legal community accused of having a long record of corruption, also influenced the decision behind the scenes. Jaffna Monitor could not independently verify either allegation.
A CRACKDOWN THAT WAS BEGINNING TO BITE
The Pommaveli conviction was not an isolated decision. In the week preceding it, Judge Alexraja sentenced several individuals convicted in narcotics cases to lengthy terms of rigorous imprisonment.
Legal sources said there had been a noticeable increase in drug-related arrests and convictions during Alexraja's brief tenure of just over a month at the Jaffna High Court. They attributed the trend to his uncompromising approach to narcotics cases, including the frequent denial of bail and the imposition of stringent sentences upon conviction.
His handling of criminal cases also drew praise from sections of the local media. One Tamil-language newspaper observed that, at a time when criminal prosecutions often take years to reach a conclusion, it was remarkable that cases before the Jaffna courts were being heard and decided within a comparatively short period. The newspaper argued that such firm sentencing had been widely welcomed by the public and could serve as a deterrent to repeat offending.
"If he had continued for a few more months, the big cats of the drug mafia in Jaffna would have been in jail," one legal source told Jaffna Monitor. "Whatever reasons the government may offer, the primary reason for this transfer is his action against the drug lords. Everything else is secondary."
Lawyers described the scale of the narcotics problem in Jaffna in stark terms. On any given day, they said, a significant proportion of those appearing before the Jaffna courts are under the age of 25 and face drug-related charges.
According to several lawyers, the crisis has come to be seen as one of the defining social challenges facing the post-war generation, with narcotics increasingly ensnaring young people across the peninsula. They said Alexraja viewed the issue not merely as a criminal justice problem but as a threat to an entire generation.
The judge's approach reflected that concern. Lawyers said obtaining bail in narcotics cases had become, in the words of one attorney, "nearly impossible" under his watch. Another lawyer told Jaffna Monitor that Alexraja saw himself as engaged in a broader effort to rescue young people from the grip of drug abuse.
"Wherever he was posted, whether in Jaffna, Kilinochchi, or Akkaraipattu, he took a hard line against the drug trade," the lawyer said. "He was known for delivering tough judgments that drug traffickers feared."
Sources told Jaffna Monitor that major narcotics figures in Jaffna had begun to feel the pressure of Judge Alexraja’s sentencing approach, and that his transfer was perceived within those networks as a relief.
THE VIHARA CASE: A SECOND MOTIVE
A second factor cited by legal sources concerns the Thaiyiddy Buddhist vihara in Valikamam North — a structure constructed illegally on privately owned Tamil land without the required approvals or permissions from the relevant planning authorities.
Sources told Jaffna Monitor that a prominent lawyer had been compiling evidence to file a writ petition seeking a mandamus order against the Valikamam North Pradeshiya Sabha for allegedly failing to carry out its statutory duty to act against the unauthorised structure.
The anticipated case sought to compel the Pradeshiya Sabha to fulfill its legal obligations under Sri Lankan law. Structures erected without valid planning approval are subject to enforcement action, including demolition orders by the relevant authorities — a principle that courts in Jaffna have recently applied in other cases, including the removal of an unauthorised third floor at Parameswara Junction in Thirunelvely West and the demolition of unauthorised boundary walls in the Nallur area.
Sources said that had Judge Alexraja remained in office, his record of adhering strictly to the law and resisting external or political pressure suggested he may have been inclined to issue an order directing the Pradeshiya Sabha to take action against the structure. Several sources identified this as one of the factors they believed contributed to the pressure surrounding his transfer.
A JUDGE OF UNUSUAL RECORD
Lawyers who practiced before Judge Alexraja during his tenure at the Mallakam Court described what they said was a marked transformation in the jurisdiction during his posting.
“Incidents of rowdyism and violent sword attacks were once rampant in the Mallakam court jurisdiction. If you had a dispute with a youth in those days — however minor — he could return the same day with a gang armed with swords,” one lawyer told Jaffna Monitor.
Such incidents, which lawyers said had once appeared before the courts on an almost daily basis, declined sharply during Alexraja’s tenure and eventually became rare. Lawyers attributed the change directly to his consistent sentencing approach, saying that offenders involved in violent crimes and gang-related intimidation were routinely sentenced to prison without exception.
He also cleared a case backlog that lawyers described as one of the most intractable in the Northern Province. Among the disputes he resolved were the Ayakkadavai Pillaiyar Temple case, which had remained pending for approximately twenty-seven years; the Innuvil Theatre dispute, unresolved for more than three decades; and the Seerani Nagapoosani Amman Temple case, which had lingered for around sixteen years.
Lawyers noted a structural problem in the judicial system whereby judges were informally assessed by the number of cases disposed of rather than their complexity or historical sensitivity, creating incentives to avoid difficult, long-pending matters.
Alexraja, they said, did the opposite. “In Mallakam, he almost cleared the old backlog,” one lawyer told Jaffna Monitor. “That is extremely rare in the legal fraternity.”
During the hearing of the Seerani Nagapoosani Amman Temple case, Alexraja, a Christian, reportedly adopted a vegetarian diet for the duration of the proceedings and immersed himself in the documentary record before delivering judgment. Lawyers who were present said the gesture reflected his understanding that courts, in cases touching on religious and community identity, carry obligations beyond legal technicality.
Lawyers also recalled his intervention against alleged police misconduct within the Mallakam jurisdiction. Following complaints from families of accused persons that certain police officers were pressuring suspects to retain only a select group of lawyers — claiming that only those lawyers could secure bail or settle cases — Alexraja convened a special meeting with practicing lawyers and strongly condemned the conduct.
He warned that officers engaged in such practices could face severe disciplinary action. Lawyers said the episode illustrated his view that access to independent legal representation was a fundamental safeguard, and that the judiciary had an obligation to protect ordinary citizens from coercion by state actors.
One incident from his tenure at the Mallakam Court, frequently cited by lawyers as illustrative of his courtroom standards, involved a court assistant whose mobile phone rang during proceedings. Judge Alexraja ordered police to confiscate the phone and had the officer remanded and produced before him. He later dismissed the matter after issuing a severe warning. Lawyers said the episode reflected his insistence that no one within his courtroom, including his own staff, was exempt from its standards.
He was, according to lawyers who worked with him, one of the few judges in the Northern Province to arrive at court by 8 a.m. and remain past 4:30 p.m. consistently. Lawyers said he would remove his shoes before stepping onto the bench, approaching the judicial seat with the reverence ordinarily reserved for a place of worship. He maintained the same practice when entering his chambers. No corruption allegation has, at any point in his career, been made against him.
“He is among the rarest of rare judges,” one lawyer told Jaffna Monitor. “Honest, disciplined, and completely unafraid.”
The judge himself reportedly received news of the transfer with composure. He reportedly told colleagues he was prepared to serve anywhere in the country and was not afraid of being moved.
CONCERNS OVER JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE
Beyond the specifics of the Alexraja transfer, lawyers told Jaffna Monitor the episode amounted to a message from the NPP government to every judge in the Northern Province and other Tamil-majority areas: decisions that displease the administration carry consequences.
"This should be considered direct interference in the judicial system," one lawyer said. "The judiciary must be free of political influence."
One lawyer who described himself as a supporter of the NPP government warned that the transfer could backfire politically. "This government came to power promising zero tolerance for corruption and abuse of power," he said. "But now a judge who enjoys enormous goodwill among ordinary people is being transferred under controversial circumstances. People who supported this government because of its accountability promises may begin to question whether those principles are being applied consistently."
Several lawyers privately expressed concern that the transfer would discourage younger judges from delivering bold or independent decisions in sensitive matters. “The danger is not only about one transfer,” one lawyer said. “The danger is the message it sends to every other judge watching.”
One senior lawyer told Jaffna Monitor that even during periods of past authoritarian governance in Sri Lanka, interference of this nature in judicial postings had not been seen at this level. The NPP government, which came to power in late 2024 explicitly on a platform of anti-corruption and institutional reform, has not publicly addressed the transfer or the grounds on which it was approved.
The episode carries particular resonance in the Northern Province, where Tamil citizens have historically viewed the judiciary as one of the few institutions capable of providing protection from political interference, military overreach, and administrative excess.
Among many people in Jaffna, the courts have long been regarded as one of the few institutions still capable of delivering justice when other state structures failed them. The perception that judicial postings in Tamil-majority areas may now be influenced by the preferences of a government-aligned governor and cabinet minister has deepened longstanding anxieties about institutional interference and political capture in Sri Lanka’s post-war North.
