E-Paper
Liberty of suspect principle links India-Lanka judiciaries, says Sri Lankan Chief Justice Surasena
Padman Surasena discusses judicial similarities with India, AI in courts, mediation benefits, and the need for regional judicial dialogue.
Sri Lankan Chief Justice Padman Surasena, who was on a three-day official visit to India, spoke to HT on a wide range of issues, including the shared constitutional traditions of India and Sri Lanka, the need to revive judicial engagement among South Asian countries, the adoption of artificial intelligence and mediation in courts, and the challenges of protecting liberty and access to justice in modern constitutional democracies. Edited excerpts:
Both India and Sri Lanka draw from deep common law traditions layered with rich local jurisprudence. From your interactions here, what aspects of the Indian judicial system resonate most closely with Sri Lanka’s own legal architecture?
This is a difficult question to answer because India’s and Sri Lanka’s legal systems are very much alike. Sometimes the way we do things is different, but at the end of our discussions, we came to the conclusion that both countries are on the same page. The fundamental principle that connects the judiciary of the two countries would be the liberty of the suspect. Both countries believe in this very deeply. All practices, procedures and substantive laws, and access to justice, are centred around this concept. The law is not for lawyers or judges; it is for the people. Judges must interpret and apply the law for the betterment of the people. Between two countries with a common legal tradition, it is the people who must come together and develop practices to suit their needs.
You spent time at the National Judicial Academy engaging with Indian judges. What stood out for you?
It was an exchange of ideas where the legal systems of Sri Lanka and India were discussed. It became very successful. We had several Chief Justices and former Chief Justices of the Supreme Court and High Courts. It was a wonderful place for sharing views, challenges the two judicial systems and the way forward. It was an exchange of ideas and a meaningful one.
You observed e-filing, live-streaming and AI-enabled tools in Indian courts. Which innovations are most relevant for Sri Lanka today?
What struck my mind most was the AI tool developed by the Supreme Court -- SUVAS (Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software -- an artificial intelligence powered translation tool) which translates into 16 languages. India is multilingual. Sri Lanka has fewer languages, but we face serious difficulties due to the scarcity of stenographers and translators. In Tamil-speaking areas, records are maintained in Tamil; in Sinhala-speaking areas, in Sinhala; and in Colombo and superior courts, in English. When appeals come to Colombo, records are often entirely in Tamil. Translation takes enormous time and causes delays. This AI tool is something we must somehow lay our hands on. The Indian e-Committee and registry have already started helping us, which is marvellous. When we go fully digital, interaction between two countries and their judicial systems would become almost automatic on a day-to-day basis through technology.
How do you see mediation, which the Indian Supreme Court and CJI Surya Kant has strongly championed?
Mediation has almost come as a substitute for litigation here. There is pre-litigation mediation and mediation during pendency of cases. It has alleviated a lot of suffering in family, property and matrimonial disputes. Courts resolve disputes, but mediation helps people understand, rethink and resolve conflicts themselves. That message struck my mind and I will definitely carry it back to my country.
You were in India along with chief justices and senior judges from several countries for the swearing-in of Chief Justice Surya Kant and the Constitution Day celebrations. How important are such moments for the judiciary - not just ceremonially, but in reinforcing shared constitutional values and judicial independence across democracies?”
Chief Justice Surya Kant went a step forward for the betterment of the region, not only for India. His swearing-in on November 24 and the Constitution Day celebration two days later served as a platform to renew friendships and familiarity with chief justices of various other nations I had met before and to meet some others for the first time. We exchanged numbers, discussed challenges and judicial systems. This is not the last time we will be meeting. I am also reassured that if you want to clarify a legal principle or a precedent, you can always call your counterpart in the other judicial system for advice and guidance. That bond and friendship were forged because of his initiative, which I appreciate very much.
Do you believe SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) or BIMSTEC (Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation) countries should deepen institutional judicial dialogue?
SAARC was inaugurated for this purpose long ago. Covid affected everything --economies, jobs and lives. There has been no upward movement in SAARC, particularly with regard to the judiciary. We must now revive it, and we can certainly take the lead. Same applies for BIMSTEC.
Sri Lanka has been an important voice on environmental jurisprudence, especially with its island-specific vulnerabilities. How do you view the role of regional courts, including India’s, in building a shared South Asian environmental jurisprudence?
Environmental issues featured prominently in your discussions in Bhopal and Delhi. When it comes to air pollution, Sri Lanka being close to India, pollution travels very fast across the sea due to winds. Sri Lankan courts will not have jurisdiction over what has happened in India. The same applies to nuclear-related environmental hazards. You cannot put up a wall like the Great Wall of China to stop such pollution. These are issues we do not think about in local jurisdictional terms until we interact with international delegates. Justice Nagarathna suggested that there could be a regional environmental court. However, that was just an idea. It is not simple because there are jurisdictional issues and sovereignty concerns. The International Court of Justice is between states, not individuals versus states. So, this is a very complicated subject and cannot be answered off the cuff. These challenges exist and require serious thought.
One key difference between India and Sri Lanka is post-enactment judicial review. How does Sri Lanka address constitutional scrutiny?
The Indian Supreme Court has wide powers under the Constitution to review a legislation post its enactment. However, under our Constitution, the validity of a bill can be challenged before enactment. Many such cases come before the Sri Lankan Supreme Court while a bill is pending in Parliament, and we can say it is unconstitutional. Once a law is passed, people shape their lives around it. Law must have stability. Constant changes can create uncertainty, especially in criminal law. We have not felt this to be a serious lacuna because the power of interpretation remains. Courts interpret law by considering the mischief the legislature intended to suppress, keeping the people’s interest in mind.
You sat on a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and observed proceedings in the Delhi High Court. Was there a moment that stayed with you?
When I sat on the bench with Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, the entire Bar stood up to welcome us. The Attorney General and Solicitor General welcomed us warmly. The Supreme Court Bar Association president even referred to my speech. At the Delhi High Court too, the Bar stood up. The gesture really touched my heart. I and my fellow judges from Sri Lanka felt completely at home.
Both you and CJI Surya Kant spoke beautifully about India-Sri Lanka’s 2,500-year-old relationship. In your view, how does this shared civilisational history shape the modern judicial engagement between the two nations?
Everyone knows India is Sri Lanka’s closest neighbour and friend. The relationship between the two countries is very ancient and goes back more than 2,500 years, even before recorded history, when bonds existed between the people, kings and rulers of both nations.
We share a strong civilisational and historical connect. Emperor Ashoka sent his children to Sri Lanka in the third century to propagate Buddhism, which is how Sri Lanka became a Buddhist country. His daughter Sanghamitta brought a sapling of the Bodhi tree from Bodh Gaya, travelling from Sanchi to Tamralipta and then by sea to Sri Lanka. That Bodhi tree still survives and is worshipped every day. Our economic relations also go back centuries, and both countries share an anti-colonial struggle. India gained independence in 1947 and Sri Lanka in 1948. Even our Supreme Courts were established within a year of each other—India in 1800 and Sri Lanka in 1801, which is why people often say India and Sri Lanka are like brothers. During the last two decades, judicial interaction has increased further. Indian judges visit Sri Lanka, Sri Lankan judges come to India. The relationship is certainly not new.
Is there a piece of judicial advice from India that you will take back to Colombo?
Mediation struck my mind deeply. Courts resolve disputes, but mediation helps people rethink. Psychologists play a role. Courts are not the best place to teach people how to live; mediation can do that. That is something I will definitely carry back with me. I was also impressed by the mediation centres annexed to the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court. That is also something we would like to introduce.
