The Influence of Marxist Ideology on Judicial Appointments Under Sri Lanka’s President Anura Kumara Dissanayake

In September 2024, Sri Lanka saw a historic shift in leadership as Anura Kumara Dissanayake, a self-proclaimed Marxist and leader of the National People’s Power
(NPP), won the presidential election after a dramatic second round of counting. By November 2024, his government had consolidated power with a two-thirds majority in Parliament, promising to deliver good governance, judicial independence, and robust anti-corruption measures. However, recent actions by the President Dissanayake administration suggest a troubling drift toward politicizing the judiciary, raising serious concerns about the erosion of democratic principles and judicial autonomy.

Justice Karunarathna’s Resignation: A Political Maneuver?

The administration has called for the resignation of Justice Bandula Karunarathna, President of the Court of Appeal of Sri Lanka, a move that has been widely criticized for undermining the judiciary’s independence. Justice Karunarathna, a highly respected figure with over 37 years of judicial experience, has held various key positions, culminating in his appointment as President of the Court of Appeal in 2023. His leadership of this pivotal court, tasked with ensuring fair administration of justice and reviewing lower court decisions, makes his targeted removal particularly concerning.

The lack of transparency surrounding the demand for Justice Karunarathna’s resignation has fueled suspicions that the administration is leveraging its power to replace impartial judges with individuals who align with its Marxist ideology. Reports suggest that a Deputy Minister from the Ministry of Public Security has been pressuring Justice Karunarathna to resign, further emphasizing the political nature of this campaign.

Marxist Ideology in Judicial Appointments

President Dissanayake’s Marxist ideology appears to have influenced recent appointments to the Supreme Court. Among the four newly appointed justices—Justice
Sobitha Rajakaruna, Justice Menaka Wijesundera, Justice Sampath Abaykoon, and Justice Sampath Wijeratne—two, in particular, have been identified as aligning closely with Marxist principles: Justice Abeykoon and Justice Sampath Wijeratne.

This ideological alignment raises concerns that the appointments were motivated by political loyalty rather than merit or seniority. Notably, Justice Bandula Karunarathna and Justice Mohammed La]ar, the first and fourth most senior judges in the Court of Appeal, were overlooked for promotion to the Supreme Court. Their omission not only disregards their extensive judicial experience but also disrupts the long-standing convention of promoting judges based on seniority, a practice that ensures continuity, fairness, and respect within the judiciary.

By appointing individuals who align with the administration’s Marxist ideology, the government risks creating a judiciary that is no longer impartial but rather an instrument of the executive. This undermines the judiciary’s role as a check on government power, eroding public confidence in its ability to deliver unbiased justice. The administration’s actions, including reports of coercion against Justice Karunarathna, reflect a broader strategy to consolidate control over the judiciary by removing or sidelining individuals who may resist its agenda. This interference sets a dangerous precedent, where judicial appointments and resignations are dictated by political considerations rather than legal principles.

Such interference not only compromises the judiciary’s ability to function independently but also weakens the public’s trust in the legal system. When citizens perceive the judiciary as an extension of the ruling party, the rule of law is fundamentally undermined.

President Dissanayake’s Marxist ideology emphasizes centralized control, often at the expense of institutional independence. The administration’s approach to judicial appointments reflects this philosophy, prioritizing loyalty and ideological alignment over impartiality and merit. This shift threatens to transform Sri Lanka’s judiciary into a tool for advancing the government’s agenda rather than safeguarding the Constitution and the rights of its citizens.

Justice Padman Surasena: A Marxist Influence on Sri Lanka’s Judiciary?

The judicial landscape of Sri Lanka is poised for a significant transformation as Chief Justice Murdu Fernando approaches retirement this year. All eyes are now on President Anura Kumara Dissanayaka, a staunch Marxist and leader of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), as he is expected to appoint Justice Padman Surasena as the next Chief Justice of Sri Lanka.

Justice Padman Surasena, a prominent figure within the judiciary, is widely regarded as a protégé of the ruling National People’s Power Party. His legal philosophy and judicial pronouncements reveal a strong alignment with Marxist principles, reflecting the ideological orientation of the party. This potential appointment signals a new chapter for Sri Lanka’s judiciary, one that could bring jurisprudential perspectives deeply rooted in Marxist ideology to the forefront.

For decades, the judiciary has served as a cornerstone of Sri Lanka’s democracy, balancing political and social dynamics. However, with Justice Surasena’s anticipated rise to the Chief Justice position, concerns and expectations abound regarding how his Marxist-leaning judgments could reshape judicial precedents, social equity, and governance frameworks.