Three senior legal professionals have filed a writ petition before the Court of Appeal seeking urgent judicial intervention to prevent a sitting High Court judge from being summoned and questioned over decisions made in the exercise of his judicial functions, arguing that such a move poses a grave threat to judicial independence and the rule of law.
The petition was filed by President’s Counsel Uditha Egalahewa, President’s Counsel Farman Cassim and Senior Counsel Sugath Caldera. The respondents are Colombo High Court Judge Udesh Ranatunga, Attorney General and Avissawella High Court Judge Sahana Mapa Bandara.
When the matter was taken up before Court of Appeal President Justice Rohantha Abeysuriya and Justice Priyantha K. Fernando, the court issued an interim order staying all proceedings connected to the summons and restraining any further steps to compel the judge’s appearance until the final determination of the application. Notices were also issued on the respondents, returnable on June 12.
According to the petition, Judge Mapa Bandara had been summoned to appear before the Colombo High Court in relation to an ongoing criminal case. The petitioners state that they have credible grounds to believe that the purpose of the summons is to question the judge regarding judicial orders he delivered while serving as the District Judge of Nugegoda.
The petition further notes that Judge Mapa Bandara’s name did not appear in the original list of witnesses attached to the indictment filed in February 2025. However, his name was subsequently included in an additional witness list filed in March 2026, identifying him as the District Judge of Nugegoda.
The petitioners contend that judicial officers enjoy immunity in respect of acts performed in their judicial capacity and that judicial decisions may only be challenged through legally recognised appellate or revisionary procedures. They argue that judicial determinations should not be subjected to collateral examination before another court exercising original jurisdiction.
Warning of the wider implications, the petitioners maintain that allowing judges to be summoned and questioned about the reasoning, propriety or exercise of judicial discretion in cases they have adjudicated would have a chilling effect on judicial independence and erode public confidence in the administration of justice.
A legal team led by Dr. Romesh de Silva, PC, together with Ikram Mohamed, PC, Manohara de Silva, PC, Rohan Sahabandu, PC, Sanjeewa Jayawardena, PC, Saliya Pieris, PC, N.R. Sivendran, Niran Anketell and Pasindu Bandara, instructed by Sanath Wijewardane Associates, appeared on behalf of the petitioners.
