Font size: 
The court charged Mihinchiarachchi with these offences while she was serving as a magistrate at Galle Magistrate's Court. This is the first time in the 200-year-old history of the Sri Lankan judiciary that a judicial officer has been sentenced to such a long term of imprisonment. The case has received little press coverage despite its importance, its implications to the country's judiciary and to public confidence in the administration of justice.
The former magistrate, convicted of making false entries in the fines' registry with intent to misappropriate money, was not present in court for the hearing of the case. In all likelihood the former judge, who was also charged with soliciting bribes, might have fled the country to evade arrest and imprisonment.
This case requires a response from the Ministry of Justice, the Judicial Service Commission, which is the highest body responsible for the discipline of judicial officers, as well as from the media and the public. In fact, the case deserves a parliamentary debate, given the adverse impact corruption and fraud by a judicial officer has on the administration of justice and the rule of law.
The incident is not minor or insignificant. Making false entries in court records, fraud and solicitation of bribes by court officials are now a practice in the country. Entering false information about fines would mean that the exact amount, publically announced as the fine and paid by the accused, is not recorded in the books. To make illegal profit, the figure entered must be lower than the actual fine announced in the court.
The fact that such manipulation of court records is possible is a clear indication of the lapse in the system of supervision. It is the duty of those in charge of monitoring the system to ensure that such things do not take place, and if they do occur, that they are stopped within the shortest possible time. This has obviously not happened in this instance.
What is more worrying is the fraud that has gone on for a long time and the soliciting of bribes in courts. Once again, such allegations, now proven in a High Court, cannot be treated as unimportant. It indicates the lack of inquiries into earlier complaints that under the circumstances may have been numerous. Had there been a proper complaint-receiving mechanism, which took prompt actions and proper investigations of complaints, this situation could not have gone on to the extent that it caused a scandal of such high magnitude.
The fear of contempt of court often prevents the media from publically discussing allegations of corruption against the judiciary. The suppression of the freedom of expression concerning any subject of public importance has disastrous effects. The misuse of the contempt of court doctrine has created fears against public discussions on judicial misconduct. The practice of tampering with court documents, use of judicial offices for fraud and for soliciting bribes shows how restrictions on the freedom of expression have caused institutions in Sri Lanka to degenerate.
The case of Mihinchiarachchi is no exception. It is unique only in that even after the failures, investigations were held and a judge was charged and convicted.
Many lawyers complain that their clients often inquire about their personal connections with the presiding judge. If a lawyer expresses displeasure at such questions, it is common for a client to leave him and look for another lawyer who entertains such illegal advances. It is to be hoped that this case will provide an opportunity for a thorough review of abuse of powers by some judges and for a genuine review of the circumstances that allow the practice soliciting bribes.
Most importantly, the people of Galle deserve an explanation about what has happened in their court. It is the duty of the Ministry of Justice to provide it and to encourage the citizens to participate in a discussion so as to avoid similar situations in the future.
