Wednesday, 23 December 2015

His Excellency Maithripala Sirisena
President of the Republic of Sri Lanka
Presidential Secretariat
Galle Face,
Colombo 1

23 December 2015

Your Excellency,

Buddhists’ Contribution to strengthening the Judicial system


I write in reference to your Excellency’s recent communication at the annual conference of the Judicial Service Association of Sri Lanka held at the Galle Face Hotel in Colombo.


It is reported that your Excellency had:


·         pledged to create an environment where the judges will be able to deliver their judgments freely

·         that steps will be taken in the future to provide foreign training to enhance their knowledge while understanding issues related to the Judicial Service

·          had pointed out the importance of finding solutions to the issue of delay in delivering a judgment when the public seeks justice.

·         advised that the immediate attention of the persons engaged in the field of law should be drawn in this regard.


It is reported also that your Excellency has stated  to another group - that  every officer should be committed to fulfill their responsibilities for the development of the country, without compartmentalizing areas.’


 My communication is with the purpose of making my own contribution in these areas.


As per my experiences in the Sri Lankan Judicial system, the main reason for the weakness in our Judicial system is lack of ownership. This cannot be cured by the Executive which your Excellency is part of. It can be cured by Governors which group includes your Excellency as well as us litigants who add our Truth when we seek the judicial process to resolve conflicts. My recent response to two legal experts is appended to this letter in confirmation of my ongoing contribution to Governance through the Judiciary as part of the Judiciary.  

Your Excellency, you are known to include the Spiritual pathway in your Governance and hence I expect your Excellency to appreciate the value of ownership above benefits of money and status. This is also the fundamental message from Lord Krishna – through Bhagawath Geetha. We may work beyond our position borders to become part of the structure and therefore work the system as owners. But given the sacrifices needed towards such ownership, only few of us go beyond position borders. Those who do – work the system as Divine Energies. In summary Governance is Ownership.


The older the matter, the greater the need for this feeling of Ownership / Governance. The Judgments delivered by the Judiciary are used towards social positioning – often to a greater extent than the decisions made by the Executive. It is therefore important to understand the fundamentals of that part of the Judicial system that we are using and/or Believe in. In presenting my understanding of the problem, I take the approach that our comprehension happens as follows:


1.      Emotional level – as per our physical senses (Body)

2.      Knowledge level – as per discriminative thinking through common measures (Mind)

3.      Belief level – as per Truth within us (Soul)


At national level – these are referred to as -  Politics, Administration and Governance. Those of us who operate close to our inner Truth are natural Governors. Such Truth already exists through every completed experience. Every time the Administrator / Judge identifies with this highest component – the nuclear power of the Nation is strengthened. Such a Nation is self-governing. It is therefore important to develop this pathway of self-governance to facilitate the Common Citizen to contribute to this Governing Energy. In Sri Lanka there is a dire need towards this, now that the positions at the top have been seriously abused – as confirmed by the new Administration regularly. I believe that it is important for the self-governing citizen to be facilitated to make her/his own judgment / decision making once the citizen has fulfilled her/his duties as per the ‘position’. Any contribution made by such a citizen through that position, needs to go towards Policy development. When such a citizen is ‘blocked’, the return karma is exponential. It is towards preventing such shocks that we have facilities in the system of Democracy. The recognized value of such a citizen would be Equal to that of the top Executive,  the same way the religious head of Islam is taken as being equal to the Institutional Head of Buddhism – the religion of majority Sri Lankans.  I believe that the core purpose of Democracy is this equal recognition of citizen and the Administrator / Judge. Towards this, the two side positions in the relationship need to be close to the line of Equality. Hence the strong recognition of Equal Opportunity Laws in Nations that are self-governing through the Democratic pathway.


The views expressed not only by the lawyers involved in the matters at the center of the letter appended, but also the judges in general  confirm that the ‘gap’ is too wide in the Sri Lankan system. I feel strongly that narrowing this ‘gap’ between the top and the bottom is necessary to reduce the damage to the Sovereignty of  our Nation. Hence the need for the citizen / officer / litigant  - to make higher contribution than is required as per her/his current position – the recognized value of which is much less than that of the Executive. Such restructuring is necessary for Democratic pathway to lead us to Economic self-sufficiency.


Positions in relationships need to be restructured each time a citizen / officer / litigant makes that contribution beyond the call of duty. Every time the occupier of the higher position in a relationship takes the credit for such contribution – for example – lawyers in the judiciary – the pathway to access Natural Sovereign Powers through such relationship by the ‘top’ is blocked.


There is Common Belief that the current Sri Lankan Government came into power due to such ‘blocks’ placed by the previous Executive in its path. This happened also in Australia in the case of Mr. John Howard who was present with President Bush during 9/11 attack. Mr. Howard lost his seat – and I believe that by doing my DUTY as a migrant and suing Mr. Howard for failing to recognize the self-governing value by me as a migrant – I made my contribution to the removal of  those blocks so ordinary Australians would more naturally access the Sovereign powers of Australia – without the intervention of the Priest / Executive. Sovereign powers are Natural Powers that we could identify with but not control.


Your Excellency, you may have knowledge of the great Indian epic Mahabharatham. In that – Sanjayan the chariot driver of the king,  is endowed with the vision to witness the details of the great war – between majority and minority powers. King  Thirutharashthiran – the father of majority – and the parallel of Mr. Rajapaksa – is presented as the blind king. The inner vision could not be rendered to this king – due to his attachment to his son. Hence Saint Vyasagar  shared his insight with Charioteer Sanjayan after Sanjayan resigned from his position as charioteer. By then Sanjayan had completed his DUTY as per his POSITION. Hence he was a governor with ‘insight’. Such governors have the ability to make the connection between cause of effect – as Natural heads of the Nation. Our elders are taken to be such self-governing members and hence the respects we pay them. In Democracy – citizens such as Sanjayan have the right to be recognized at equal level as the Executive at the top – be it President and/or Prime Minister. 


In Sri Lanka, Buddhist leaders have been made part of the Executive through Article 9 of the Constitution. This renders institutional value to such Leadership at the Common level.  Given that the Constitution is the Soul of a Nation – any abuse of power by the Buddhist clergy would  be of exponential value.


In my letter to our lawyers I have responded to the following accusation by the lawyer/s in this regard:

 I have to refer to your statement relating to the manner in which evidence of Mr. Piyadasa was recorded at the trial before the District Court. In this regard I have perused the brief to refresh my memory on the relevant circumstances. Mr. Piyadasa had been duly affirmed prior to his evidence being recorded. Perhaps you are not aware that witnesses of the Buddhist faith do not swear but affirm. In the circumstances your inferences arising from this misconception and the reference to the learned trial judge in that case is altogether unwarranted.’ - Lawyer


No, I had no knowledge that Buddhists did not swear but affirmed in Court. It did surprise me. The picture that came  to mind when I read the above passage was that of an experience in 2009 – when I was waiting for approval by the Ministry of Health to share in the pain of my folks in Chettikulam camps. I went many times a week for six weeks to obtain this approval from the Ministry. At one stage a senior officer said ‘don’t go there and ask for separate state’. It was hurtful that I, a Tamil, would be recognized through LTTE – a group that rightly or wrongly represented a section of the Tamil Community.  But taken at the higher common level – this is also the ongoing claim of self-governance by Tamils and as a self-governing Tamil in need of clearance to serve my own people – I accepted that accusation – as if I was LTTE Leadership. More to the point in the current context – I prayed to Lord Buddha through the statue in the office of that senior officer. I got the clearance as a reward for such forbearance. That BELIEF in the Divinity of Buddha made all the difference and it was as if I worked the mind of that officer from then on. As they say – ‘to err is human and to forgive is Divine’. I believe that by including as part of myself - the authorities from whom I had to get approval to provide higher services of the kind you are referring to now – I became part of the nuclear force that worked the Government. Such is the value of ownership.


I highlighted the difference, to a relative of the Deceased whose Estate is at the center of the Jaffna matter mentioned in the appended letter, as follows:


1.      The sister who wrote to Foreign Bank without consultation with either  of the brothers claimed in Mallakam District Court - that she looked after the Deceased and her other siblings after their mother passed away.

2.      Since  I am a relation by marriage, I asked the relative by birth at one stage whether this sister experienced hardship

3.      That relative said words to the effect ‘she cooked for 10 persons’

4.      I said the relative was confirming ‘what happened’. That is an Affirmation. If that relative had shared in the experience, the relative would have simply said that the lady had experienced hardship. That would be as if the person giving evidence had been part of the Experience and hence amounts to swearing.


Your Excellency, the above kind of sharing through swearing is ‘Sharing at  Soul level – which happens when we are in Truth / Love. There needs to be a Judge / Legal Leader to receive such sharing on behalf of the Legal experts.


The component of evidence from  the document  is completed by the reader/judge  – for her/his purposes through her/his Truth - but the evidence itself is available to all. Hence the need for Transparency.  In Democracy – this component is greater than personal evidence under oath – through common belief.


By swearing – we invoke the power of the Absolute – beyond institutional structures. Affirmation on the other hand is confirmation at physical level – that we observed and that we present to the Court – the observed value.  Life to this is from us the self-governors/judges. The Common mind of those who contributed to the production of the document is not recognized in particular form of belief.  Documentary evidence of what happened – stands on its own rights and does not need a subject to prove it, so long as the document itself is authentic. Like the gross body, the document itself has no belief of its own. The reader of the document adds the Soul – her/his soul – to interpret the value for her/his purposes. This then connects to that invisible Common mind without a particular form in Court.


On the other hand, when a person gives evidence, after Swearing – s/he is entitled to add that ‘interpretation’ as per her/his belief as ‘owner’ of the experience in particular form, mapped by the witness though religious faith. 


Affirmed information is thus the parallel of Documentary evidence. If majority litigants in the Judiciary are Buddhists – and as the lawyer has highlighted they do not Swear but -  Affirm – then effectively – the value of the Constitution is limited to the followers of the architect of the Constitution – Mr. J.R. Jayawardene when he was President and the Nation is not able to access the Divinity of Lord Buddha independent of the Government – to strengthen the Judicial system.


All oaths taken by members of Government – on the basis of the Constitution of Sri Lanka which includes Article 9 are actually Affirmations due to majority practice in Court by Buddhists. I noticed that Mr. Wigneswaran who presents himself as Hindu also committed himself to the lawful structures of Sri Lanka, when he assumed office as Chief Minister of Northern Province. He did not swear on the Bhagawath Geetha – the globally accepted Hindu Bible. He thus did not confirm in action that he represented the Common faith of Tamil Community bound by common faith – given the form of  Majority religion – Hinduism. Hence the seed of his position is Common Sri Lanka through the face of majority empowered  by the Constitution and therefore  Article 9.


To earn the Equal status of Diversity of  particular faith – that faith needed to have been given form where one had the Opportunity to do so. In that instance Mr. Wigneswaran was the parallel of the litigant bringing her/his Truth to Court. A member of minority, who confirms allegiance to the existing Constitution with Article 9 has the duty to invoke in Action Articles 10 and 14 (1)(e) which provide for the practice of religion by every citizen as individual and/or as part of a group.


Your Excellency, where one side in a relationship completes her/his position duties and contributes beyond that level – such a person naturally invokes the Truth in the other to the extent of the Natural contribution beyond the call of duty. This could be damaging to the structure through which Governance is executed. To minimize this risk it is important to lift the bar to place higher responsibility on the lower relation – so the gap between the relatives is close to Equality. Where the citizen fails to raise her/his contribution, it is important for the leader to reduce her/his level of activity – so the other side could ‘see’ and identify with. The risk in the latter is that the leaders then tend to become like their followers and therefore get attached to benefits rather than becoming owners of the structure itself. Thus far you have demonstrated largely that you have more simplicity than your predecessors in that position. Our genuine investments in global structures are available to all who seek self-governance at global standards and it is hoped that our services would be valued and recognized to strengthen the structures to suit next generation and beyond.


To become global in Judicial structures – we need to repeal Article 9. To become Universal in Justice system – we need majority to Swear as per their form of God. Those who swore on the Sri Lankan Constitution are accepting that Sri Lanka is their form of God – not Buddhists empowered by  Article 9.


Yours sincerely


Gajalakshmi Paramasivam



CC: All Concerned







Vairavar-Kali Kovil; Sangarathai-Thunaivi;  Sri Lanka

906/ 56, Carr Street; Coogee  N.S.W. 2034; Australia

Phone 61 2 9315 7417;   94 21 2051313 ;    94 771117607


N. Manoharan,

Attorney-at-Law & Notary Public

109, Hulftsdorp Street,

Colombo 12


19 December 2015


Dear Mr. Manoharan,




Thank you for your letter dated 18 December 2015 in relation to my letter to Mr. Parathalingam PC. I respond to your questions as follows:


1.      The Root Cause of Termination of the Services of Mr. Parathalingam PC - Conflict of interest

You state: ‘Mr. Parathalingam PC is the senior counsel retained by you through me to appear in the said appeal. You did not discuss with me or in any manner bring to my notice the allegations you have made in your email against your counsel except your concern that he was appearing for an opposing party in an appeal in the Jaffna High Court, which appeal was in no manner connected to the appeal under reference.


My Response: Your position in this legal team representing my side – did not warrant me discussing details of how I felt about various attitudes. I respected you as per your POSITION. That was my DUTY. Had we sat down and discussed with you – as my husband’s friend - then I would have discussed with you on the basis of my experience and my feelings as per that experience. I recall having done just that in regards to Mr. Nadarajah whom we appointed at the primary stage of the Jaffna matter - due to the recommendation by the same person – Ms Viji Singaram Thadchan – who recommended Mr. Parathalingam PC (as confirmed in my letter dated 05 December 2015). As you would recall if that discussion was important to you from a professional angle - I was concerned about the lack of commitment to professionalism by Mr. Nadarajah – an uncle of Mr. Parathalingam PC. I was particularly upset by the direct involvement of Mrs. Nadarajah in the legal matters – especially when dealing with clients. I was paying for legal expertise and the form was Mr. Nadarajah and not Mrs. Nadarajah.


In the Colombo case in which  Mr. Parathalingam PC represented me – you had a position. Not so in the Jaffna case and therefore the appointment of Mr. Nadarajah to represent us in Court was independent of legal duties.  I believe that where there is position – there is DUTY. That DUTY comes first to me except in emergencies when Truth overrides all else.


It is interesting that you claim that the two appeal-matters have no connection whatsoever. Mr. Manoharan, the two matters are at appeal stage. As per my experience in the legal system – appeals are largely about:

1.      Errors in Law

2.      Errors in Fact

The way the same law or fact is interpreted varies as per our own thought structure. A President’s Counsel would need to have invested much more deeply in the interpretation of Law by higher minds close to Policy, and it is this investment that we pay for through the higher fee relative to an Attorney at law like yourself. You would note that the fee I paid you in relation to this appeal – is higher than that of Mr. Parathalingam’s son’s as claimed through the father. As a Chartered Accountant I upheld the value of the costs paid by me and placed you above Mr. Parathalingam’s son. That was as per my Truth and the position I hold in this team as the litigant. Towards this I had to override your readiness to not charge us because my husband is a friend of yours. At the primary stages I included it as goodwill on your part. But at appeal stage I took over the appointments and hence the payments to you.


My husband informed me that you had rung him earlier this week – in essence saying that I had erred. I accept that - as your professional stand in this matter but expected you to have contacted me. To the extent you contacted my husband, I took it as goodwill- sharing. It is this personal investment in each other and in different positions beyond the average participant that earns us the higher membership in our respective professions and in society – the place where we merge, naturally through our Truth.


Mr. Parathalingam PC’s services were commissioned for that higher personal component which would contribute towards development of new laws and/or maintain existing laws. If it were for money value only – I would have been richer spending my resources in Australian activities – selling my services to the one who was ready to pay me most. I renounced such offers to contribute to policy at this stage of my life. My book Naan Australian, of which you have a copy -  has all the details of how this happened.


Given the importance of that personal element at appeal stage – I felt strongly that Mr. Parathalingam would lack the higher level independence to interpret Thesawalamai Customary Law as it was practiced by our Common Family – which includes me for legal purposes. To the extent – my brother in law Mr. Subramaniam Yoganathan accepted me and placed me at a position above his sisters for structural purposes – I carry true position in relation to the settlement of his Estate.


Mr. Manoharan, you have confirmed in your letter, the claim you made to my husband that  my communication was defamatory. The records would confirm that I took legal action in the Supreme Court of New South Wales for Defamation – against the Party that Mr. Parathalingam is representing in the Jaffna matter. The Australian Court dismissed the matter claiming lack of jurisdiction over what happened in Mallakam Court. But I registered my pain genuinely through the processes available to me. To the extent I was genuine – the pain was submitted to the Court of Natural Justice which is accessible to all and is workable by our Truth but is not under anyone’s particular control. One who swears genuinely, accesses this power. Such a litigant is God’s servant and such a witness is an instrument of God. The workings of this system are known once we go beyond the seen and the known, on the basis of our Belief/Truth. Often as you seem to have also done – this part is not recognized by lawyers and judges who are actively playing the legal game for personal gains – including for legal grades through cleverness.


The litigant who submits her/his pain on the basis of Belief / Truth – holds the highest Natural Position in a court of law where FACT has equal recognition as investment in Law. Where the former exceeds the latter the conflict is naturally escalated to the higher level – the Court of Natural Justice  - with the person so submitting being recognized as the Appellant. Where this is done through the legal process of the environment (as was the case with my Australian Court Process for defamation) the results happen through the legal process also. Hence the defamation pain felt by Mr. Parathalingam PC who caught the infection waiting for someone who had earned it instead of me. It may be necessary for the Sri Lankan system to prevent such Dual Representations if that pain is too strong for the Sri Lankan lawyers. It’s based on the Doctrine of Separation of Powers. Where a person is driven by Truth – the boundaries cannot be justly limited to matters. If indeed Mr. Parathalingam felt such defamation pain – then it is his DUTY to sue me through his legal system. Otherwise I would conclude that it is mere ego pain which is more easily cured once he makes me an outsider / opposition in both matters.


2.      My Duty as the Litigant and as your client

You state: ‘I did not have the faintest idea that you were contemplating sending an email as you have done or any communication at all.  In fact I was shocked when I received a copy of your email. On the face of the email I noticed that you have sent copies thereof to multiple parties but not to Mr. Parathalingam himself.  If you had any concerns arising out of the professional relationship between your counsel and yourself  you ought to have brought them to my notice as your instructing attorney so that I could take appropriate action if needed. I am constrained to observe that your conduct is in breach of your duty to me as your instructing attorney and has caused me distress.’


My Response: Until I knew otherwise through my experience with you, I expected you to receive my communications at the same level of commitment with which I received your communications. On that  basis, when I informed you outside the Courtroom on 03 December 2015 – that I was upset with Mr. Parathalingam representing my opponents in the Jaffna matter – while my Colombo matter was still active – and asked you to find another Counsel to represent me – I was instructing you to terminate Mr. Parathalingam’s services. As per my memory you did agree to engage another counsel. Hence to my mind,  any shock in your mind, is due to you becoming the spokesperson of Mr. Parathalingam instead of my Attorney – representing me to all other participants in this matter.. Between you and Mr. Parathalingam – there may be legal standards as per your Administrative processes and professional standards. They are  not however binding on the litigants who engage your services. By instructing me – you have effectively reduced my status below yours in this instance and that is indeed defamatory in action.


3.      You refer to my DUTY.  Duty happens when there is POSITION. Between you and I – as per our positions,  you are the legal expert and I am the facts expert, respectively. When user of law is allocated a higher position than the user of fact – we become an over-litigated society and confirm the high risk of abuse of legal power. The highest position taken cannot be above the value of Facts submitted in Court, including through Affidavit evidence. Any position above the value of such Facts – is abuse of power. I instruct you and you instruct the Counsel who submits to the Common Judge. In this case the picture in your mind seems to be that you are instructed by the President’s Counsel and that you are instructing me. When I sent you my understanding of the matter through relevant laws, including case laws, they were submissions and not direct legal arguments. This required me to  renounce any direct benefits from my knowledge of law. That was the Separation with which I bound myself. As a lay litigant which position is facilitated actively in the Australian system – I had the satisfaction of submitting to Court – my interpretation of the law – as a non-legal user. But as a litigant represented by the legal profession – I had to ‘forget’ my own interpretations of the law in this matter – so I would better hear the legal version. This then limited me to the power of my facts alone. The reward is that I am an Equal to the highest legal person in the matter – and hence cannot be found fault with through legal standards and rules. Once I wear the legal cap – I make myself your junior.


There needs to be a common law that gives you the authority to judge me – as having acted in breach of my duty. Since I have no knowledge of such a law, it is YOUR DUTY as the legal expert – to advise me but you have no authority to judge and deliver such judgment. The distress comes from your own breach as judged by your conscience and it is inappropriate to pin the blame on outsiders – which I have become to you. To that extent you have to ‘wait’ until you have objectively measurable proof of wrong doing as measured by Common Principles/Law. As a friend I feel for you but I feel more for the legal system which belongs equally to the litigants who have acted within the boundaries of laws of the Nation. As a friend, I recommend meditating on the Truth to bring yourself out of the stress caused by ‘attachment’ to benefits than to contribute to the maintenance and development of the system itself.


4.      My Duty as the Litigant and as your client

You state:The better part of your letter contains your views of the existing legal system and procedure and the need for improvements with religious overtones. I cannot comment on these views although I find some of it incomprehensible. However I will deal with those statements of yours that relate to        Mr. Parathalingam PC.


My Response: Mr. Manoharan, in your offices – at Hultsdorp – the legal capital of Sri Lanka and at Havelock Town, you have the photo of Swami Sathya Sai Baba who is my Spiritual Guru. If you did not believe in the religious path – you would have had the picture of Lady Justice instead of Swami Sathya Sai Baba. In addition to this ‘personal’ component – the Sri Lankan Constitution includes Buddhism as a pathway to Healthy Justice system. Once it is a law – it has a positive role as an active measure of judgment. Hence as a Hindu, you have the DUTY to use the parallels of Article 9 and practice your religion in Sri Lankan Court Process also.


As per my knowledge a good proportion of Sri Lankan laws have their base in Western cultures through Roman Dutch Law and English Law. Much of this would be incomprehensible to the rural folks strongly driven by religion through which they interpret Natural Forces. The positive aspect of Article 9 of the Constitution of Sri Lanka, is the role it plays in filling that void – so minds would come together through Buddhism also. To effectively equal the substance of this – we, of the minority religions have to practice more actively our respective religions. Otherwise we would be contributing to Discrimination on the basis of religion happening when majority Judges/Administrators  are Buddhists. The risk of this happening is much higher when the Judges /Administrators  become seniors due to age and are comfortable and complacent in their positions. They then bring out their true mind structures formed by their home-cultural environments. If your above statement is true of majority in the Sri Lankan profession – then the Sri Lankan legal profession also has the contributed to the ethnic war in Sri Lanka – after Buddhism was made part of the legal system. The Constitution  being of nuclear value – automatically generates its own powers through those vested with the responsibility to practice the law. Like air that we do not ‘see’ – the power of the Constitution affects all of us one way or the other. Just because we do not recognize it does not mean that it does not exist or that it is dead matter.


You state further in this regard:


Next, I have to refer to your statement relating to the manner in which evidence of Mr. Piyadasa was recorded at the trial before the District Court. In this regard I have perused the brief to refresh my memory on the relevant circumstances. Mr. Piyadasa had been duly affirmed prior to his evidence being recorded. Perhaps you are not aware that witnesses of the Buddhist faith do not swear but affirm. In the circumstances your inferences arising from this misconception and the reference to the learned trial judge in that case is altogether unwarranted.


As per my interpretation, one needs religion based swearing to activate the power of common faith. To the extent one submits in Court only the ‘observations’ as a witness – like any other observer and no more – affirmation is sufficient. But where one seeks to submit one’s personal belief – the witness is her/his conscience and the closest pathway to this is personal belief. Where one is of a particular religion God in that person’s mind is given that religious form. If no such God is recognized by Buddhists – then their belief is taken to be limited to the belief in the legal system. This is further facilitated by Article 9 of the Sri Lankan Bible/Constitution. Mr. Piyadasa who claimed ownership through Prescriptive Rights – had the authority to submit evidence only from the day he declared his ownership through the legal process – which was years (10 years as per my memory) after I recorded my lawful purchase of the land from Mr. A.T.Benedict – a respected professional in our Accounting circles. All evidence regarding occupation and possession prior to Mr. Piyadasa’s legal declaration become inadmissible when he affirmed instead of swearing. In affirmation we are observers. In swearing we are also judges as per our conscience. Hence we use the Bibles of respective religions. I stated in Australian Court that there was no Hindu Bible on which I could swear. Magistrate Smith whose conscience was stronger than most other judges, gave recognition and asked the Court Officer to produce a copy of the  Bhagawath Geetha. When the officer informed the Court – that there was none in the Court – I smiled and said I would mentally swear on the Hindu Bible while touching the Christian book. The Buddha Sasana/Bible is invoked through Article 9 of the Constitution but unless a Buddhist invokes this by swearing  – the evidence is merely to confirm what happened – as if the witness is an outsider. It does not confirm in the language of the law – the Belief of the witness as to why something happened. In this instance – it may confirm that Mr. Piyadasa occupied that land at certain periods. But it did not confirm validly in that Court that he BELIEVED the land was his. It is that deep belief in the higher powers beyond the seen and the known that adds validity to our Affidavit Evidence in support of WHY? Had Mr. Piyadasa sworn on Article 9 of the Sri Lankan Constitution – his evidence as to why what happened after he became a member of the system of Law – would have been admissible. This on its own still does not deliver a win for Mr. Piyadasa but his evidence would have been more admissible in regards to his belief based ownership from that moment of declaration until he was challenged by me through the legal process. This is way below the legal requirement of 10 years.


Given that you state on behalf of  Mr. Parathalingam, that my observations in this regard were ‘altogether unwarranted’, I conclude that I did hire the wrong Counsel who could not distinguish between belief as an insider /owner and observation as an outsider.


Take for example your following statements:

‘You chose Mr. Parathalingam PC as your counsel for the appeal and pursuant to your choice, with which I was also in agreement and I retained Mr. Parathalingam PC as your senior counsel. I also retained Mr. N. K. Parathalingam as junior counsel. You were well aware of this position and handed to me the fees due to both senior and junior counsel which I paid to them.’


They become ‘facts’ only to the extent one believes in the causal forces. Otherwise they are merely bodies of  facts and are irrelevant beyond constructing the picture of what happened. In the above passage you have confirmed that Mr. Parathalingam PC was retained due to my decision. I was the causal force. If YOU retained Mr. N.K. Parathalingam then YOU became the causal force. As per my observations – Mr. N.K.Parathalingam is Mr. Parathalingam Senior’s assistant and does not have any independent standing in this matter. Yes, I was aware of this position and by paying the money to you I accepted what happened. This does not mean that I caused it to happen. That team formation may be beneficial to both Counsels. But to my mind, if one was hired independent of the other – then I as the client would have received more wholesome service through a different angle of interpretation, of this matter. This to my mind, is the philosophy underpinning Lord Muruga’s six faces of observation – with each face representing an organ of observation plus the sixth – being the Common surface memory in our brain through which we receive the observations and forms the wholesome picture of 360 degree view.  If you hired Mr. N.K. Parathalingam as an independent contributor – then you ought to have demanded independent input from him as an Equal to his father but for a different part of the process – as is the case with you.


You state: ‘I must add that as your senior counsel in the said appeal Mr. Parathalingam PC has on every date of hearing been present in Court with his junior counsel ready to argue the appeal and was not responsible for the postponements.’


Mr. Manoharan, your friend and my husband would inform you that there is a component of marks allocated for ‘attendance’ for fresh students at his University. A committed University student would not need such allocation. Likewise a committed senior lawyer who stands as an independent would not need to prove that he earned his fee by attending Court. All of you are contributors to the delays in Court. Did you ever allocate marks to me for coming all the way from Sydney, Australia to confirm my commitment to the legal system? Someone Up Above did and hence my contribution to the Legal system to improve Administration. During the last session in the Jaffna matter, despite learning that the Court would not hear the Appeal due to one of the Judges being on leave, I attended Court as a mark of respect for the Court staff who did their duty. Above all, I respected my own contribution to that matter and therefore registered my presence in Court for Administrative purposes. Now I realize that the True Administrator in me took me there – as if the Court was in session for registry purposes. But there Mr. Parathalingam did announce to the judge the angle from which he was seeking to argue the matter. This to my mind, was unethical given that my side lawyer was not present and I myself was not recognized and allocated a position to represent myself for that time. I did the needful anyway and apprised our attorney at law of the gist of Mr. Parathalingam’s presentation – to the extent I understood it. The reward is the revelation through you that Mr. Parathalingam is not as strong as I in Administration which is common to the lawyer, the litigant and the judge. Unless Mr. Parathalingam argues through a particular section of law within Thesawalamai, applicable to Intestate Estate  and its interpretation by the legal fraternity – it would be very difficult for him to win on merit basis. If it were that easy – Mr. Yogendra who represented my opponents in the Jaffna matter at the primary stage – would have represented them at the appeal stage also. On the other hand it could also be due to his fear of our Attorney at Law – Mr. V.Manivannan’s expertise – despite the latter being a junior – more or less parallel to Mr. N.K. Parathalingam.


If Counsels do not take money for mere attendance they  are more likely to promote competition which is healthy for legal business. Every postponement is confirmation of Administrative weakness within the legal system.


You state:


I disassociate myself with and totally disapprove of other general remarks you have made about    Mr. Parathalingam PC.’


I strongly suggest that you send a copy of this letter of yours to Mr. Parathalingam PC so he gets the right message about you. I in turn did NOT associate you with those remarks and hence am outside  your circle of approval or disapproval.


You state:

I have taken note of your wish not to avail yourself of the services of Mr. Parathalingam PC and junior counsel in this appeal. In the present circumstances I am sure he will readily return the brief to me.


If Mr. Parathalingam does not return the brief and you are therefore not able to replace the services through another legal expert – I propose to represent myself and ask you to please do the needful to facilitate this – of course for a fee.


You state:


In your email you have not made any allegation whatsoever or any lapse of Mr. Parathalingam PC in conducting this appeal and I myself was also convinced that Mr. Parathalingam PC has done his best. I noticed that the statements made by you against Mr. Parathalingam PC are unwarranted and unjustifiable. It is very wrong of you to question his integrity and honesty because he has conducted this appeal without a lapse on his part and in the best possible manner. Further it was very wrong of you to copy other institutions and individuals as they are not in any way connected to this appeal.


Mr. Manoharan, Mr. Parathalingam PC’s best does not include his higher integrity needed to maintain  the core purpose of the existence of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers. To me as a deep investor in the system of Democracy – this commitment to the Separation of the mind from the ‘other’ side is an essential part of success through the Legal Process.  It is also strongly needed by our National Government and each one of us has the opportunity to strengthen this power through our genuine and independent practice of the Doctrine. Mr. Parathalingam confirmed his weak investment in Democracy – by failing to separate himself from one side or the other. I did the needful to uphold that separation and this I believe is healthy for the system as a whole.


You conclude by stating ‘In the circumstances I advise you to withdraw all allegations and apologize in writing to Mr. Parathalingam PC and send copies of same to all concerned.’  You use the word ‘advise’ but in essence your message has the quality of ‘instructing’ me as to what I should do. I decline to withdraw any of my statements but I promise to continue with MY PRACTICE of being Transparent to all concerned.  Mr. Parathalingam PC himself has not listed his email address publicly and hence our staff here  sent his letter by registered post on 17 December. But as expected, the email has reached Mr. Parathalingam PC though his junior.  I inform you that this is my pathway while in Vaddukoddai which is very very slow in its Administration – after 30 years of war.  No withdrawal no Apology. May I remind you that we Sri Lankans are moving towards  a laissez-faire system under the current leadership.



Yours sincerely



Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

CC: All Concerned



No comments:

Post a Comment