By Our Legal Correspondent
JAFFNA, Sri Lanka: The Judicial Service Commission has removed Bandula Gunaratne from the bench in Gampaha and posted him to the Sri Lanka Judges’ Institute, the judiciary’s training body, a little over two weeks after he asked the Court of Appeal to bring contempt proceedings against the Inspector General of Police, Priyantha Weerasooriya.
The transfer, effective immediately, was announced on Nov. 6 in a letter from the commission’s secretary, Prasanna Alwis. It came shortly after Mr. Gunaratne sent the commission his response to a complaint the police chief had lodged against him. The commission has not given a reason for the move. Kosala Senadheera has been appointed Chief Magistrate of Gampaha and is due to take up the post on Monday.
The dispute began with a drug case in May.
The order
Police in Gampaha charged Chamara Chathuranga Marasinghe of Makandana with possessing small quantities of heroin and crystal methamphetamine at Asgiriya Junction. They filed two cases against him on the same charge on the same day, and both came before Mr. Gunaratne.
The police told the court the second case was an oversight and asked to withdraw it. The magistrate refused. According to reports of the proceedings, he noted that three officers had been listed as witnesses, which he said showed the case had been brought to secure a conviction. He summoned the officers to explain themselves. None appeared, and neither did the area’s senior superintendent of police.
He found the charges baseless and, under Section 17 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act, ordered the three officers and the Police Department to pay Mr. Marasinghe Rs. 200,000 in compensation. He also directed the IGP to issue a circular instructing officers across the country not to file baseless cases against innocent people.
In the same order, Mr. Gunaratne said Government Analyst reports showed that the quantities of drugs in many police cases were far smaller than officers had claimed, and that some samples contained no drugs at all. He said the rising number of cases reflected police inefficiency, and remarked that if monthly targets kept climbing, within five years the country would run out of people for the police to charge. He also said the Police Gift Fund, which receives fines imposed under the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, should be used to compensate people subjected to such cases.
The contempt referral
When the matter came up again on Oct. 21, the police submitted a circular dated Oct. 19. It had been issued by the area’s deputy inspector general and covered only the Gampaha, Kelaniya and Negombo police divisions. Mr. Gunaratne rejected it, saying his order applied to the whole country, and accused the police of trying to mislead the court. He directed the court registrar to forward the case files to the President of the Court of Appeal. Under Article 105(3) of the Constitution and the Contempt of a Court, Tribunal or Institution Act of 2024, the Court of Appeal has the power to punish contempt of the lower courts, and the Act sets out the procedure for doing so.
A police spokesman, ASP F.U. Wootler, said the next day that the police legal division would most likely consult the Attorney General’s Department.
The complaint
Mr. Weerasooriya, whom President Anura Kumara Dissanayake appointed IGP in August 2025, lodged a complaint about the magistrate with the Judicial Service Commission. Neither the date nor the contents of the complaint have been made public. The commission is chaired by the Chief Justice, and its two other members are the Supreme Court’s two most senior judges after him. It decides the postings, promotions and discipline of the country’s magistrates and district judges.
A police chief who believes a magistrate has exceeded his powers can seek revision of the order in a higher court. No such application by the police has been reported. Whether the IGP’s failure to issue a nationwide circular amounts to contempt, and whether the magistrate had the authority to order one in the first place, are questions for the Court of Appeal if it takes up the referral.
The IGP has some support on the question of authority. According to official sources, the National Police Commission discussed the magistrate’s strictures and felt he might have overstepped his authority. A source close to the outgoing commission said it had its own disagreements with Mr. Weerasooriya, who had ignored some of its orders, but had sided with him in this case. Some lawyers have also questioned whether a magistrate can refer the IGP for contempt at all.
Jaffna, May
Lawyers in Jaffna protested a similar transfer in May.
A.G. Alexraja was appointed to the Jaffna High Court on April 22. Five days later, he issued a two-week interim order halting an inquiry that the Northern Province Governor, N. Vethanayahan, had ordered into decisions of the Point Pedro Urban Council. On May 18, he lifted the order and dismissed the petition, ruling in favour of the provincial administration. On May 21, he sentenced a woman from Pommaveli, arrested in 2020 with 1.475 grams of heroin, to seven years of rigorous imprisonment, ending six years of adjournments. On May 25, he ordered the provincial transport authority to draw up a joint timetable for state and private buses.
On May 28, he was transferred to the Civil Appellate High Court in Badulla, about 350 kilometres away, effective May 31. High Court judges usually serve three to four years in a posting.
Legal sources told Jaffna Monitor at the time that the governor’s office had written to higher authorities accusing the judge of obstructing the work of the state. The Governor’s Secretariat denied that the governor had any connection to the transfer.
Members of the Jaffna Bar Association voted 59 to 1 to write to the President. In its letter of May 30, the association expressed “complete disbelief and shock” and asked Mr. Dissanayake to order an investigation and to meet its members. It accepted the commission’s authority to transfer judges but warned that “unexplained and sudden transfers of judicial officers and interference by members of the Executive branch of Government in such transfers leads to loss of public confidence in the judiciary.”
The wider dispute
The transfers come amid a year of argument over the government’s dealings with the courts.
At a May Day rally in Maharagama, Mr. Dissanayake told supporters that a verdict in a pending corruption case would be delivered on May 25 and that they should be ready to applaud. Twenty-six opposition lawmakers signed a statement objecting to the remarks, and 24 later complained to the United Nations special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers. The cabinet spokesman, Nalinda Jayatissa, said the dates of court hearings and verdicts were already public.
In August, the government introduced the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, raising the retirement age of Supreme Court judges from 65 to 67 and of Court of Appeal judges from 63 to 65. A companion bill gave lower-court judges, including magistrates, two more years. Both measures apply to judges already in office. The government said the changes would help clear a backlog of about 1.1 million cases. The Bar Association of Sri Lanka called them neither necessary nor desirable, and the International Association of Judges asked the government to withdraw the amendment. The Speaker told Parliament that 67 petitions had been filed against it. The Supreme Court determined that it did not require a referendum, and on Sept. 25 Parliament passed it by 158 votes to 63.
What Mr. Dissanayake said in 2023
In September 2023, T. Saravanarajah, the district judge and magistrate of Mullaitivu, resigned and left the country, citing threats to his life and stress. He had ordered the removal of newly built structures at Kurunthurmalai and the excavation of a mass grave at Kokkuthuduvai, and he alleged that the Attorney General had pressed him to reverse his Kurunthurmalai order. The Wickremesinghe government said the Attorney General had only discussed legal matters with him.
Mr. Dissanayake, then leader of the National People’s Power, which was in opposition, said at the time: “If a magistrate has to face death threats just because he gave a ruling that is not partial to the government, it is a serious situation.”
Three years on, the question he put to Ranil Wickremesinghe’s government is being put to his own.
The proper remedy
Lawyers and retired judges consulted by Jaffna Monitor said that when a magistrate exceeds his jurisdiction or errs in law, the remedy lies within the courts. A party aggrieved by a magistrate’s order may apply for revision to the Provincial High Court, under Article 154P of the Constitution, or to the Court of Appeal, under Article 138. The Judicial Service Commission’s disciplinary powers, they said, exist to deal with misconduct, while errors in a judge’s rulings are for the appellate courts to correct. Transferring a judge in place of those remedies, they said, would demoralise judges who decide cases fairly and independently, and could amount to interference with the judiciary or intimidation of its officers.
