Sri Lankan Lawyers Who Don't Know the Law? A Crisis of Competence or Convenient Ignorance?
The legal profession in Sri Lanka is governed by a sophisticated framework of constitutional provisions, statutory enactments, and procedural rules. Yet disturbing questions arise when lawyers—whether in public commentary, political advocacy, or professional practice—demonstrate a troubling unfamiliarity with the very instruments that define their profession.
The Constitutional Framework They Ought to Know
Article 136(1)(g) of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to make rules regarding "the admission, enrolment, suspension and removal of attorneys-at-law and the rules of conduct and etiquette for such attorneys-at-law" . This constitutional provision forms the bedrock of the legal profession's regulation. The Supreme Court Rules made under this article are not optional guidelines—they are mandatory procedural requirements that "regulate the practice and procedure of the Court" .
The Supreme Court has consistently held that "Rules of the Supreme Court are made in terms of Article 136 of the Constitution to regulate the practice and procedure of this Court. Similar to the Civil Procedure Code, which is the principal source of procedure which guides the courts of civil jurisdiction, the Supreme Court Rules thus regulate the practice and procedure of the Supreme Court" .
The Judicature Act: The Profession's Statutory Foundation
Section 40(1) of the Judicature Act No. 2 of 1978 provides that "the Supreme Court may in accordance with rules for the time being in force admit and enroll as attorneys-at-law, persons of good repute and of competent knowledge and ability" . This is not mere administrative detail—it establishes the substantive standard for entry into the profession.
Section 41 of the Judicature Act defines the right of representation, providing that "every attorney-at-law shall be entitled to assist and advise clients and to appear, plead or act in every court or other institution established by law for the administration of justice" .
Section 42 vests in the Supreme Court disciplinary powers, including the power to suspend or remove an attorney-at-law found "guilty of any deceit, malpractice, crime or offence" .
Section 43 recognizes the role of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka in maintaining professional discipline, empowering the Chief Justice or any Supreme Court Judge to direct that "a preliminary inquiry into any alleged misconduct of such attorney-at-law shall be held by a disciplinary committee of the Bar Association" .
Ignorance of Procedure Is Not an Excuse
The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that non-compliance with mandatory rules has consequences. In Attanayake v. Commissioner General of Elections, Chief Justice Dr. Shirani A. Bandaranayake held that "the Supreme Court Procedure laid down by way of Supreme Court Rules made under and in terms of the provisions of the Constitution cannot be easily disregarded as they have been made for the purpose of ensuring the smooth functioning of the legal machinery of this Court" .
The Court further observed that "through a long line of cases decided by this Court, a clear principle has been enumerated that where there is non-compliance with a mandatory Rule, serious consideration should be given for such non-compliance as such non-compliance would lead to a serious erosion of well established Court procedure followed by our Courts throughout several decades" .
When lawyers claim ignorance of these rules, they betray not only their professional duty but also their clients' interests. As the Supreme Court noted, "Judges do not blindly devote themselves to procedures or ruthlessly sacrifice litigants to technicalities, although parties on the road to justice may choose to act recklessly" . But recklessness born of ignorance is no defence.
The Courts of First Instance They Should Understand
The Judicature Act establishes a clear hierarchy of courts. Section 2 provides that the Courts of First Instance shall be the High Court of the Republic of Sri Lanka, the High Courts for the Provinces, District Courts, Family Courts, Small Claims Courts, Magistrates' Courts, and Primary Courts .
The High Court consists of not less than ten and not more than one hundred and ten judges . District Courts, Family Courts, Small Claims Courts, Magistrates' Courts, and Primary Courts are established in each judicial district and division .
Yet some lawyers who speak publicly on judicial matters demonstrate little understanding of these courts' jurisdiction, their appellate structures, or the procedural requirements that govern practice before them.
The Consequences of Professional Incompetence
The Supreme Court has inherent jurisdiction to protect the profession's integrity. In In Re Dematagodage Don Harry Wilbert, Justice Mark Fernando held:
"The inherent jurisdiction of a court springs from its very nature; the grant of a statutory power to deal with a particular act, in a particular manner, does not necessarily exclude such inherent jurisdiction, nor are the boundaries thereof immutable or circumscribed. Such inherent jurisdiction exists, and is exercised, because it is essential for the administration of justice" .
This inherent jurisdiction exists precisely because the legal profession must maintain standards of competence and integrity. Lawyers who fail to understand the Constitution, the Judicature Act, and the Supreme Court Rules undermine the administration of justice and the public's confidence in the legal system.
Conclusion
The legal profession in Sri Lanka is governed by a rich body of constitutional and statutory law that demands rigorous study and careful application. When lawyers—particularly those in leadership positions—demonstrate ignorance of these foundational instruments, they betray the trust placed in them by the public and by the courts.
The community must always have competent lawyers, "for it is then only that the citizens can assert and vindicate their rights created and guaranteed by law and claim that the due administration of justice and the Rule of Law prevails in the country" . Those who cannot meet this standard should not presume to lead the profession.