When Sri Lanka’s superior courts, the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, deliver divergent opinions on similar or identical questions of law—particularly in rights-based applications—the consequences reverberate throughout the legal system. Such divergence erodes public trust, undermines the foundational principle of stare decisis, fosters unpredictability, and thereby encourages forum shopping or bench hunting. This groundbreaking study examines the causes and implications of this judicial divergence, tracing its roots to the expansion of judicial activism and creativity of recent decades. While such judicial approaches have been valuable, they must be exercised in a manner that avoids inconsistency—both between the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, and among distinct benches within each of these superior courts. The Supreme Court has progressively broadened fundamental rights jurisprudence to encompass systemic justice, environmental harms, and emerging protections. Meanwhile, the Court of Appeal has dynamically expanded its writ jurisdiction beyond traditional ultra vires grounds, incorporating new grounds of review and enforcing rights not expressly enumerated under the fundamental rights chapter of the Constitution. This book explores how parallel proceedings, judicial hunches, varying benches, the intuition and temperament of justices—including threats to judicial independence and accountability—contribute to inconsistent determinations, undermining public trust in the judiciary. Ultimately, it underscores that true justice demands not only independence of the judiciary but also accountability, transparency, consistency, and equity—ensuring the law serves as a guiding light for all, rather than illuminating only those already within reach of privilege.