NCJ Number
58448
Date Published
1978
Length
5 pages
Annotation
THE FEATURES AND OPERATIONS OF THE SRI LANKA CONCILIATION BOARDS, ESTABLISHED IN 1958, ARE EXAMINED IN THIS PAPER IN TERMS OF THEIR IMPACT ON REDUCING COURT CASE LOADS. DATA ON OPERATIONS FROM 1970 THROUGH 1976 ARE GIVEN.
Abstract
THE CONCILIATION BOARDS ACT WAS A NOVEL ATTEMPT TO AVOID PROTRACTED AND UNNECESSARY LITIGATION. THE OBJECTIVE WAS TO HAVE DISPUTES RESOLVED BY A THIRD PARTY BEFORE THE TWO OPERATIONS OF THE BOARDS SUGGESTED THAT THESE BOARDS MIGHT HAVE EVENTUALLY REPLACED THE COURTS AS THE MAJOR INSTITUTION FOR THE RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES (GOONESEKERA AND METZER, 1971). WHILE SUCH A CONCLUSION WAS CLEARLY UNWARRANTED, THE OPERATIONS OF THE BOARD WERE IMPRESSIVE. FOR EXAMPLE, OF 211,379 CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CASES REFERRED TO THESE BOARDS IN 1976, 207,634 WERE RESOLVED. THE SUCCESS ENJOYED BY THESE BOARDS CAN BE ACCOUNTED FOR, IN PART, BY THE FACT THAT THE 1958 ACT REQUIRED THAT BEFORE ANY DISPUTE COULD BE ENTERED INTO COURT, IT WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE CONCILIATION BOARD. THUS, WHILE CONCILIATION ITSELF WAS ENTIRELY VOLUNTARY FOR THE PARTIES APPEARING BEFORE THE BOARD, AN ATTEMPT AT CONCILIATION WAS MADE MANDATORY. THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION ON CIVIL CASES WAS EXTENSIVE WHILE ITS INVOLVEMENT IN CRIMINAL CASES WAS LIMITED TO MINOR OFFENSES. WHEN AN OFFENSE WAS REGISTERED BEFORE A BOARD, THE BOARD SUMMONED THE TWO PARTIES AND INQUIRED INTO THE OFFENSE. THE GATHERING OF EVIDENCE WAS NOT GOVERNED BY THE EVIDENCE ORDINANCE, BUT WITNESSES HAD TO BE GIVEN THE SAME PRIVILEGES THEY WOULD HAVE IN COURT. PROBLEMS AROSE OVER THE APPOINTMENT OF BOARD MEMBERS WITH CHARGES MADE THAT THE APPOINTMENTS WERE POLITICALLY MOTIVATED, AND THE BOARDS WERE DISSOLVED IN 1977. FROM AN EXAMINATION OF THE DATA, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THESE BOARDS WOULD HAVE REDUCED COURT CASELOADS. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (KCP).