When Justice Has More Than Two Voices
There is a tendency to assume that every court case consists of two opposing sides standing before a judge, each seeking victory over the other.
More often than not, that is precisely how litigation unfolds. Yet every so often a case arrives that is larger than the immediate parties before the Bench. This appears to be one of those occasions.
Submit Your Press Release
Get your company news, announcements, launches, appointments and events in front of a wider audience.
His Eminence Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith has now filed an intervening petition before the Court of Appeal in the proceedings initiated by former State Intelligence Service Director Major General (Retd.) Suresh Sallay, who has challenged the legality of his detention under the Prevention of Terrorism Act in relation to the ongoing investigations into the Easter Sunday terrorist attacks.
It would be easy – but entirely wrong – to interpret today’s development as the Cardinal taking sides in a criminal case. That is not what an intervening petition is intended to achieve.
The Archbishop is not asking the Court to determine whether General Sallay is guilty or innocent. Indeed, that is not the issue presently before the Court at all. The question before the Court concerns the legality of the detention order itself. The criminal investigation continues independently of that question.
So why does today’s application matter?
Because it reminds us that some legal proceedings carry consequences extending well beyond the individual who has come before the Court.
An intervening petition is a recognised legal procedure through which a person or institution asks the Court for permission to participate because it believes it has a sufficient legal interest in the outcome. It is, in effect, a request to say, “This case affects interests that deserve to be heard before a decision is reached.”
Whether that request is granted is entirely a matter for the Court.
If leave is granted, it does not elevate the intervening party to the position of prosecutor, nor does it diminish the rights of the petitioner. It simply allows additional legal submissions to be placed before the Court so that the judges may determine the issues with the benefit of a broader perspective.
That broader perspective is particularly relevant in a case arising from the Easter Sunday attacks.
Few events in Sri Lanka’s modern history have left such deep and lasting scars. Hundreds lost their lives, many more suffered life-changing injuries, and countless families continue to seek answers more than seven years later.
It is therefore unsurprising that the principal representative of the Catholic community should seek to participate in proceedings that, in his view, may have implications for the continuation of those investigations.
Equally, it is fundamental to the rule of law that every person – regardless of office previously held or public opinion surrounding the allegations – is entitled to challenge the legality of actions taken against them. Courts exist precisely to ensure that executive power is exercised within the limits imposed by law.
That is why the importance of this case lies not in personalities but in principles.
The Court will ultimately be called upon to balance competing legal considerations: the rights of an individual challenging the lawfulness of detention, the integrity of an ongoing criminal investigation, and whether those representing the interests of victims ought to be heard before a decision is reached.
None of those questions predetermines the outcome. None should be mistaken for a finding of guilt or innocence.
There is another lesson here as well. In matters of profound national significance, justice is seldom a conversation between only two voices. Sometimes the Court must decide whether others, whose lives have been shaped by the events under examination, should also be permitted to speak.
That decision, like every other in this case, belongs to the judiciary alone.
Be that as it may, today’s filing is a reminder that the Easter Sunday tragedy remains far more than a historical event. It continues to test Sri Lanka’s legal institutions, its commitment to due process, and its ability to ensure that justice is not only done, but is seen by all concerned to have been done.
