Chief Justice of Sri Lanka Padman Surasena, who was on a three-day official visit to India, spoke to HT on a range of issues, including the shared constitutional traditions of India and Sri Lanka, the need to revive judicial engagement between the South Asian countries, the adoption of artificial intelligence and arbitration 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 with rich local jurisprudence. From your conversations here, what aspects of the Indian judicial system most closely match Sri Lanka’s own legal architecture?
This question is difficult to answer because the legal systems of India and Sri Lanka are very similar. Sometimes our way of working is different, but at the end of our discussion, we came to the conclusion that both the countries are on the same page. The fundamental principle linking the judiciaries of both countries will be the independence of the suspect. Both countries believe in this very deeply. All practices, procedures and access to substantive law and justice are centered on this concept. Law is not for lawyers or judges; This is for the people. Judges must interpret and implement the law for the good of the people. Between two countries with similar legal traditions, people should come together and develop practices to suit their needs.
You spent time interacting with Indian judges at the National Judicial Academy. What was special for you?
It was an exchange of views where the legal systems of Sri Lanka and India were discussed. It was very successful. We have had many Chief Justices and former Chief Justices of the Supreme Court and High Courts. It was a wonderful place to share ideas, challenge the two judicial systems, and move forward. It was an exchange of ideas and it was meaningful.
You saw e-filing, live-streaming and AI-enabled tools in Indian courts. Which innovations are most relevant to Sri Lanka today?
What came to my mind the most was the AI tool developed by the Supreme Court – SUVAS (Supreme Court Legal Translation Software – an artificial intelligence powered translation tool) which translates into 16 languages. India is multilingual. There are fewer languages in Sri Lanka, but we face serious difficulties due to lack of stenographers and translators. In Tamil-speaking areas, records are maintained in Tamil; In Sinhala-speaking areas, in Sinhala; and in Colombo and the High Courts, in English. When appeals come to Colombo, the records are often entirely in Tamil. Translation takes a lot of time and delays. This AI tool is something we must somehow get our hands on. The Indian e-Committee and Registry have already started helping us, which is wonderful. When we go completely digital, interactions on an everyday basis between two countries and their judicial systems will become almost automated through technology.
How do you view arbitration, which has been strongly advocated by the Supreme Court of India and CJI Surya Kant?
Arbitration has come here as an alternative to litigation. Pre-trial mediation and arbitration take place while cases are pending. This has reduced a lot of suffering in family, property and marital disputes. Courts settle disputes, but arbitration helps people understand, reconsider and resolve disputes themselves. That message stuck with me and I will definitely take it back to my country.
You were in India along with Chief Justices and senior judges of 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 formally, but in strengthening the constitutional values and judicial independence shared in all democracies?”
Chief Justice Surya Kant took a step forward for the betterment of not only India but the region. His swearing-in on 24 November and the Constitution Day celebrations two days later served as a platform to renew friendships and acquaintanceships with Chief Justices of various countries whom I had met earlier and some others for the first time. We exchanged numbers, discussed challenges and judicial systems. This is not the last time we will meet. I have also been assured that if you wish to clarify any legal principle or precedent, you can always call your counterpart in the other judicial system for advice and guidance. That bond and friendship was formed because of his initiative, which I appreciate very much.
Do you believe that 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 long ago with this very purpose. Covid affected everything–economy, jobs and lives. There has been no progress in SAARC, especially with regard to the judiciary. Now we have to revive it and we can definitely lead it. The same applies for BIMSTEC.
Sri Lanka has been an important voice on environmental jurisprudence, particularly with its island-specific vulnerabilities. How do you see the role of regional courts, including India, in building a common South Asian environmental jurisprudence?
Environment related issues figured prominently in your discussions in Bhopal and Delhi. When it comes to air pollution, Sri Lanka is close to India, with winds causing pollution to spread much faster across the ocean. Sri Lankan courts will not have jurisdiction over what has happened in India. The same applies to nuclear-related environmental hazards. You can’t build a wall like the Great Wall of China to stop this kind of pollution. These are issues that we don’t think about in terms of local jurisdiction unless we interact with international representatives. Justice Nagarathna suggested that there could be a regional environment court. However, that was just a thought. This is not simple as there are jurisdictional issues and sovereignty concerns. The International Court of Justice is between states, not individuals versus states. So, this is a very complex topic and cannot be answered without thinking. These challenges exist and need to be seriously considered.
A major difference between India and Sri Lanka is the post-judicial review of the Act. How does Sri Lanka address constitutional scrutiny?
The Supreme Court of India has wide powers under the Constitution to review any law after it has been enacted. However, under our Constitution, the validity of a bill can be challenged before it is enacted. Many such cases come before the Sri Lankan Supreme Court while a bill is pending in the Parliament and we can say that it is unconstitutional. Once a law is passed, people shape their lives based on it. There should be stability in the law. Constant changes can create uncertainty, especially in criminal law. We do not find this a serious shortcoming because the power of interpretation remains. The courts interpret the law by considering the mischief which the legislature intends to suppress while keeping in mind the interest of the people.
He sat on the bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and observed the proceedings in the Delhi High Court. Was there any moment that stuck 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 President of the Supreme Court Bar Association also mentioned my speech. The bar was also raised in the Delhi High Court. This 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 the 2,500 year old India-Sri Lanka relationship. In your view, how does this shared civilizational history shape the modern judicial engagement between the two countries?
Everyone knows that India is Sri Lanka’s closest neighbor and friend. Relations between the two countries are very ancient and date back more than 2,500 years, even before recorded history, when bonds existed between the people, kings and rulers of the two countries.
We share a strong civilizational and historical bond. In the third century, Emperor Ashoka sent his children to Sri Lanka to propagate Buddhism, thus Sri Lanka became a Buddhist country. His daughter Sanghamitta, traveling from Sanchi to Tamralipta and then by sea to Sri Lanka, brought a sapling of the Bodhi tree from Bodh Gaya. That Bodhi tree is still alive and is worshiped every day. Our economic ties also go back centuries and both countries share an anti-colonial struggle. India got 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 that India and Sri Lanka are like brothers. Judicial interaction has increased further during the last two decades. Indian judges go to Sri Lanka, Sri Lankan judges come to India. This relationship is definitely not new.
Is there any judicial advice from India that you will take back to Colombo?
Mediation had a deep impact on my mind. Courts settle disputes, but arbitration helps people reconsider. Psychologists play a role. Courts are not the best place to teach people how to live; Mediation can do this. This is something I will definitely take back with me. I was also impressed by the mediation centers attached to the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court. This is also something we would like to introduce.
