Steven Thiru, president of the Commonwealth Lawyers Association, said he was concerned about how the Supreme Court handled petitions challenging the proposed 22nd Amendment to the Constitution.
Concerns about the Supreme Court hearing procedure
Thiru, who attended the hearing as an international legal observer, said petitioners’ counsel were not given a chance to make an oral reply after submissions closed.
Direction to file written responses instead of oral replies
He said the petitioners’ lawyers asked for permission to reply orally, but the bench told them to submit written responses instead.
Why oral replies matter in constitutional amendment challenges
Thiru said oral replies let counsel clarify points and answer judges’ questions. Refusing that opportunity in a case about the constitution, he added, reduces transparency and limits the chance for immediate clarification.
Given the legal and public importance of the issue, he said petitioners’ counsel should have been allowed to respond orally. In the courtroom, the decision prompted a few raised eyebrows — not dramatic, but noticeable.
Thiru is in Sri Lanka observing the Supreme Court proceedings on petitions against the proposed 22nd Amendment, Lakbima News reported.
