DISSANAYAKE, ATTORNEY-AT-LAW ON BEHALF OF K. M. LAL v. SUJEEWA, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEETIYAGODA POLICE STATION AND OTHERS S.C. APPLICATION NO. 524/96

At the time this application was filed the victim Lai was unconscious. Subsequently he tendered an affidavit. It was alleged that close to midnight on 02. 06. 1996 when he was sleeping in his house, the 1st respondent and other police officers arrived and arrested him. He was taken to the Meetiyagoda Police station. In the early hours 03. 06. 1996 the 1st respondent assaulted him with hands and feet and a club when he lost consciousness. Later that day the police admitted the victim to Batapola hospital. As per…

Read More

PRIYANKARA v. PC SISIRA KUMARA, POLICE STATION, PUTTALAM AND OTHERS SC APPLICATION NO 214/96 (SPL.)

The petitioner was travelling in a Puttalam bound bus when a passenger boarded the bus with a lighted cigarette. When the conductor of the bus attempted to stop the smoking, the passenger retaliated by using obscene language. At that stage the petitioner intervened. Then also the passenger retaliated by using obscene language. When the bus reached the Puttalam bus stand the passenger challenged the petitioner. The petitioner attempted to escape but the passenger assaulted the petitioner repeatedly. Thereafter, the petitioner visited the Puttalam Police Station and complained to the OIC,…

Read More

BENNETT RATHNAYAKE v. THE SRI LANKA RUPAVAHINI CORPORATION AND OTHERS | 199 2SLR 93

The petitioner produced a Sinhala telefilm entitled “Makara Vijithaya” at a cost, he said, of Rs. 2.3 million. The 1st respondent Corporation refused to telecast the petitioner’s telefilm during “prime time” for telefilms of that type, viz between 8.30 pm and 9.00 pm on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays. The telefilm was reviewed on three occasions by different boards. On each occasion the decision was adverse to the petitioner. But he was not told who the members of the board were, how they had been appointed, what procedure they would follow,…

Read More

NALIKA KUMUDINI, ATTORNEY-AT-LAW, (ON BEHALF OF MALSHA KUMARI) v. NIHAL MAHINDA, O.I.C. HUNGAMA POLICE AND OTHERS S.C. APPLICATION (F.R.) NO. 615/95

Malsha Kumari a 14 year old girl was arrested at her house by police officers of the Hungama Police Station. She was questioned about the theft of a gold chain and assaulted by Police Officers both at the time of her arrest and at the Police Station. The 1st respondent, officer- in-charge of the Police Station, assaulted her with a hose-pipe and trampled her. Thereafter her hands were tied behind her back and she was hung on a tree with a rope. While she remained hung the 1st respondent beat…

Read More

ABASIN BANDA v. S. I. GUNARATNE & OTHERS S.C. APPLICATION NO. 109/95.

The Petitioner alleges that he was arrested at about 6 p.m. on 1, March 1995, for no reason. He was taken to the Hanguranketha Police Station where the 1st Respondent assaulted him with a piece of wood. He was produced before the Magistrate in the morning of 2, March, 1995. The Petitioner states that he was waiting for a bus at the Rikillagaskada junction to go home, after selling cloth. Then the 1st respondent arrived in a jeep with two Police Constables and arrested him. The petitioner was not informed…

Read More

Convention Against Torture And Other Cruel, Inhuman Or Degrading Treatment Or Punishment Act No 22 of 1994 ( Sinhala , Tamil, English)

WHEREAS a Convention against Torture and other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, was signed in New York on December 10, 1984: AND WHEREAS by an instrument of accession dated December 14, 1993, and deposited with the Secretary- General of the United Nations Organization, on January 3, 1994, Sri Lanka has acceded to the aforesaid Convention : AND WHEREAS the aforesaid Convention has entered into force for Sri Lanka with effect from February 2, 1994: AND WHEREAS it has become necessary to make legislative provision to give effect to…

Read More

LUCAS APPUHAMY v. MATURATA AND OTHERS S.C. APPLICATION NO. 87/94.

Where there were sufficient grounds for suspecting that a cognizable offence had been committed by the petitioner, his arrest without a warrant was in accordance with procedure prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore not in violation of Article 13(1) of the Constitution. Where the medical evidence of the injuries found on the petitioner was consistent with the version of the Police that they had been sustained in the process of the use of reasonable force in making the arrest, it cannot be said that a violation of…

Read More

KODITUWAKKUGE NIHAL POLICE SERGEANT KOTALAWALA AND OTHERS SC APPLICATION NO. 1 2 6 /9 4

The Is’ to the 10th respondents were police officers attached to the Police Guard Room, Boralesgam uw a w hich com es u n d er the M aharagam a Police Station. On 04. 03. 1994, the petitioner w as arrested by the 1st and 2nd respondents for a traffic offence and taken to the Police G uard Room, Boralesgam uwa after using m uch force on him. W hilst in police custody, the 1st, 2nd, 4lh and 5th respondents assau lted him. He was assau lted with a rubber…

Read More

BANDARA AND ANOTHER v. PREMACHANDRA, SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LANDS, IRRIGATION AND MAHAWELI DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS | 1994 1SLR 301

The 22 petitioners along with 15 others were selected to follow a four-year residential course leading to the award of a Bachelor’s degree in the Surveying Service. Only Class III, Grade III Surveyors were eligible to follow this course. The 1st respondent issued letters of appointment appointing them as Surveyors in Class II Grade III on probation for a period to be notified (but not notified). Shortly thereafter the petitioners became members of the Government Surveyors’ Association, a Trade Union. The Annual General Meeting of the Association was held on…

Read More

SHANTHI CHANDRASEKERAM v. D. B. WIJETUNGA AND OTHERS, the judgement was for three habeas corpus applications by supreme court. S.C. 1/92. 2192, 3/92

SHANTHI CHANDRASEKERAM v. D. B. WIJETUNGA AND OTHERS, the judgement was for three habeas corpus applications by supreme court. Fundamental Rights – Reference to the Supreme Court by Court of Appeal on the ground that was prima facie of infringement of Articles 11, 13(1) and 13(2) in three habeas corpus applications – Jurisdiction of Supreme Court in matters of infringement of fundamental rights. the judgement was the petition granted and I grant the Petitioner in each case a declaration that the detenu had been arrested in violation of Article 13(1),…

Read More