CHANNA PIERIS AND OTHERS v. ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND OTHERS, the Ratawesi Peramuna Case and judgement was given by supreme court. SC APPLICATIONS NO. 146/92 TO 154/92 AND 155/92 (SEVEN APPLICATIONS)

The ten applications were by consent considered together. The applicants in the ten applications were granted leave to proceed for the alleged infringements of their rights guaranteed by Articles. The petitioners were participants in a “movement” called the Ratawesi Peramuna formed in November 1991 under the leadership of Atureliya Rathana and patali champika ranawaka. the disruption in January 1992 of the exhibition of posters in Matara and the resurgence of the JVP were discussed after which a manifesto was introduced by Champika Ranawake the petitioner in Application No. 154/92. There…

Read More

WIMAL VIDYAMANI vs LT. COL. JAYATILLEKE AND OTHERS S.C. APPLICATION NO. 852/91 SPL

The petitioner who was the Mill Security Officer at the Embilipitiya Mill of the National Paper Corporation was arrested and detained by the Police under emergency regulations for being allegedly concerned in a subversive J.V.P attack on the Paper Mill. Thereafter, he was transferred to the Pelawatte Detention Camp and detained under a Preventive Detention Order. The petitioner had an exemplary record of service and had won the confidence of his employer. There was no material to warrant the suspicion that the petitioner had J.V.P. links or was concerned in…

Read More

RATNAPALA v. DHARMASIRI, HEADQUARTERS INSPECTOR, RATNAPURA AND OTHERS SC APPLICATION 162/91

respondents had assaulted and brutally tortured the petitioner over a period of three weeks. The injuries suffered by the petitioner were irreparable, particularly in view of the fact that one of his lungs had to be surgically removed. The 1st (Hector Dharmasiri, Headquarters Inspector) and 2nd (I.P. Gunasekera, officer-in-charge), respondents deliberately encouraged, tolerated and acquiesced in the acts of torture and inhuman treatment inflicted on the petitioner on whom the J.M.O. found 26 injuries. Hence the 3rd, 5th, 6th and 7th respondents who have been identified by the petitioner along…

Read More

Sirisena and others vs Ernest Perera and Others judgement was given by supreme court S. C. APPLICATION NO. 14/90

The 1st and 2nd Petitioners were engaged in carpentry work at Arijapala’s residence in Bullers Lane between 02 and 08 April. The 3rd, 4th and 5th Petitioners were arrested by the Police when they visited the Corona’s Court at the General Hospital Colombo on 21 April 1990 to see the 1st aid 2nd Petitioners who had been arrested by the Police and produced before the Coroner to give evidence at the inquest. The 3rd to 5th Petitioners were detained by the Police and so deprived of their liberty from 11.30…

Read More

Samanthilaka Vs Ernest Perera and Others. the judgement was given by supreme court S. C. APPLICATION No. 65/88.

Gamaralalage Samanthilake alleged that The violation  by certain police officers.   the petitioner  who Samanthilake concerned her fundamental right of freedom from arrest, except according to procedure established by law [Article 13 (1)]; her right to personal liberty and freedom from detention or custody, except after being produced before a judge of the nearest competent court, upon and in terms of an order of such judge made in accordance with procedure established by law[Article 13 (2)]; and the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or…

Read More

AMAL SUDATH SILVA v. KODITUWAKKU, INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND OTHERS | 1987 2SLR 119

The petitioner has established that he has been subjected to torture and cruel treatment by the Police whoever they be, despite doubts about the exact identification of the particular Police Officers, when he was under arrest. The police force is an organ of the State. The State is liable to pay compensation to the victim. Per Atukorale, J. ‘The report of the M.O. is in my view, valueless and unworthy of acceptance. On his own showing it is evident that he has not carried out an independent examination of the…

Read More

JAYANETTI v. THE LAND REFORM COMMISSION AND OTHERS |1984 2SLR 172

The petitioner had made an application to the Land Reform Commission (1st respondent) to purchase 50 acres out of Mount Pearl Estate an agricultural land and annexed to it a letter of recommendation from the then Member of Parliament the 6th added respondent as this was an administrative requirement for such an application. By letter dated 4th March 1982 the Regional Director of the Commission informed the petitioner that the request could not be granted because the Member of Parliament had withdrawn his recommendation owing to strong objection raised by…

Read More

Gunawardena vs Perera and Others S.C. APPLICATION NO.20/83.

The petitioner who are the Gunawardena  and others are going to passed the Kollupitiya police station with caring the banner. the policeman who came in suddenly and  take the banner. The photographer who is going  on road  and take the photo. after he was arrested by police. the petitioner and other go to police station for take off him. and  after petitioner who is Gunawardena and others were subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by policeman. The judgement was the petitioner and others arrested in unlawful and contravened Article…

Read More

VELMURUGU v. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND ANOTHER |1981 1SLR 406

The petitioner a member of the District Development Council for Amparai was prevented by army officers when travelling in a car with 3 others to go to the 4th Colony. He was stopped at the junction on the 4th colony and obliged to turn back and go back towards Kalmunai.On the way he apparently received various complaints of houses being burnt and assault. The petitioner put down the 3 persons who were in his car and proceeded back again towards the 4th Colony. On the way he met Fr. Elmo…

Read More