Sri Lanka's Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake went court asking to quash the decision of the committee saying she was denied natural justice, the committee was biased, and that it was not an independent tribunal.
The court of appeal has ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear the case, reports said, in a landmark decision that will lead to the judicial review of the actions of a parliamentary committee for the first time.
Sri Lanka's Speaker had previously said that the parliament was not bound by court decisions, a position that was backed by opposition leader Rani Wickremasinghe, who also has a habit of claiming that the parliament is 'supreme'.
The Chief Justice in her plaint had cited a submission made by Sri Lanka at the United Nations over shortcoming in the island's impeachment process for judges in seeking judicial review of a decision made by a parliamentary committee.
"On the previous occasion the Human Rights Committee examined Sri Lanka’s periodic report, it express concern on the compatibility of the impeachment process with the scope and spirit of Article 14, since it would compromise the independence of the judiciary," the plaint said, quoting what is said was clause 302 in a set of documents.
"As stated above Article 107 a judge can be removed only on “proved grounds of misbehaviour or incapacity” and the standing orders allows for the judge in question defend himself either on his own or retaining a legal counsel, non adherence to the rules of natural justice by the inquiry committee would attract judicial review.
"Indeed nowhere either in the relevant constitutional provisions or the standing orders seek to exclude judicial scrutiny of the decisions of the inquiring committee. Thus, it is envisaged that if the inquiring committee were to misdirect itself in or breached the rules of natural justice its decisions could be subject to judicial review."