An exceptional professional and human being
The passing of Justice Prasanna Jayawardena, an eminent lawyer and judge of the Supreme Court, shocked and saddened many from all walks of life. Prasanna earned the respect not only of lawyers and his judicial colleagues, but also of others with whom he interacted. Some of his character traits, as a professional and particularly as a human being which earned him this respect, are what I wish to highlight.
As a lawyer at the unofficial Bar, quite apart from his competence, he upheld its best traditions which in bygone years had earned the profession the respect of society. As a judge of the Supreme Court he did likewise. His judgements, personal integrity and judicial temperament reminded me of some of the judges during my time and before who had been similarly endowed. He brought credit to a great institution – the Judiciary – which is one criterion by reference to which one can assess the quality of the society one lives in. It is one of the three pillars which are expected to be the custodians of good governance.
As a person the qualities he exhibited contributed to the respect people had for him, including the youth which I was privy to on one occasion. He possessed qualities associated with proper rectitude on the one hand, and on the other, those of a maverick in the sense of one who takes an independent and principled stand on issues. He could never be influenced by political or other undesirable considerations or pressures in the performance of his duties, other than the merits of the case or issue. This was coupled in appropriate places with a sense of equity. These qualities were evident also in situations outside the legal sphere.
When I came to live in the community in which he resided, I found that some of the staff too was aware of his egalitarian approach in dealing with people from different walks of life. He did not ask for or expect favourable treatment by virtue of his position as a judge. He was also imbued with a sense of humility which I along with others perceived in many instances. He was bold and courageous as well as fair-minded in expressing his views. His appreciation of the concept of equity is one of the traits that endeared him to me. Importantly, his life was not confined to the world of the law. He had other interests and pursuits which contributed to making him a well rounded personality and thus an interesting person in social contexts. He readily extended his help to many in need. He also had an endearing sense of humour and a great capacity for enjoying life.
It was the totality of these characteristics that made him a worthy role model for youth. This was demonstrated by a group of students on an occasion when he made a certain presentation. This role was particularly important because we live in an era which is, unlike several decades ago, relatively short or barren of desirable role models. He knew how to disagree without any acrimony. On one occasion he and I disagreed on a certain matter. We began our respective presentations by giving due credit to each other and almost regretting that we differed on the issue. As he mentioned to me, that was the way that two people should disagree.
He and I had agreed that after his retirement which was not far off, we would discuss several matters which were improper for me to raise with him until then. Alas, this was not to be. His passing is a loss to the country, profession, judiciary, to friends and acquaintances and a host of others, but equally importantly to his closely-knit family and his wife, who no doubt were proud to have had him within their fold.