The Hon. Bimal Rathnayake

¶ 01 Sir, I rise to a Point of Order.

¶ 02 Under Standing Order 83(1) and (2), it is stated:

¶ 03 “(1) The personal conduct of the President or Acting President, Members of Parliament, Judges or other persons appointed to the administration of justice shall not be raised except upon a substantive motion. In any debate on a question referred to a Minister, or on any motion relating to some other matter, it shall be out of order to refer to the conduct of any such person in such a manner.

¶ 04 (2) In this Standing Order, ‘Judge’ includes a Judge of the Superior Courts appointed by the President by Warrant under his hand, namely, the President of the Court of Appeal and every other Judge of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal.”

¶ 05 Therefore, this Standing Order is clear. Hon. Chairman, we cannot discuss officers of the superior courts except upon a specific substantive motion. Secondly, the term used is “personal conduct”. I have already tabled a ruling given during a matter presented by S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike in 1958, where the then Speaker ruled that even regarding courts, such references are not in order. Without naming a judge, if necessary we can refer to a relevant High Court case number instead. I submit this is a matter of Standing Orders. One cannot act according to personal preference. I request your attention to this.