News
SC upholds harassed teachers riaght to go to the media
View(s):“Freedom of speech is essential for the proper functioning of the democratic process,” the Supreme Court held this week, while reinstating with compensation, a Government school teacher, sacked for granting a media interview on harassment suffered by her within her institution.
“Public opinion plays a crucial role in modern democracy and it is of great importance,” said the judgment delivered by Chief Justice K Sripavan, with Justices Upaly Abeyrathne and Anil Gooneratne, concurring. It pointed out that the fundamental right to the freedom of speech and expression enshrined in Article 14(a) of Sri Lanka’s Constitution, is based on the provisions of the First Amendment of the US Constitution and Article 19 of the Indian Constitution.
In 2012, Manohari Pelaketiya, a graduate Eastern Music teacher at Mahanama College, Colombo 3, petitioned the Supreme Court that she was subjected to harassment by the College Principal, Premalal Kumarasiri and T.T. Malegoda, a male teacher who was a close associate of the Principal. She said the latter had made indecent advances of a serious nature on her but, despite being brought to the notice of school authorities, no action was taken.
A statement was also recorded by the Kollupitiya police with regard to an incident which took place in March 2011. The petitioner argued that no tangible and meaningful results were shown in any of the investigations and that she was under various pressures. During this period, she had declined several interview requests by journalists.
However, since no justice was done to her, she decided to openly speak, in the hope it would cause the authorities to move swiftly; she did so “with the sole objective of preventing further recurrences and in the best interest of school administration.” Ms Pelaketiya was then interdicted by the Secretary to the Ministry of Education. At various times, she had also been denied salary increments and her transfer requests turned down.
Respondents argued that, by giving an interview to the media and airing her views of an official inquiry, she, Ms Pelaketiya had contravened the Establishment Code. They maintained that relief sought by the petitioner would set a precedent that will disentitle Government institutions from taking measures to prevent public officers from disclosing information on internal disciplinary matters, when it is under consideration.
The relevant section of the Establishment Code states: “An officer, not specially authorized in that behalf, other than those referred to in Section 6.2, is forbidden to allow himself/herself to be interviewed on, or communicate, either directly or indirectly, any information which he/she may have gained in the course of his/her official duties to any person, inclusive of mass media reporters who are not officially entitled to receive such information”.
The Code also says: “The Mass Media should not be used as a means of criticism of the Government or other Government Institutions or, to ventilate departmental grievances”.
Making his judgment, Justice Sripavan observed that continuous abuse and sexual harassment over a period of time would cause physical and mental damage to any human being. “Therefore, freedom of expression by the petitioner, of sufferings and the harm done to her by a few public servants, is normal and natural, even if she has made a mistake by acting contrary to the Establishment Code,” he held.
“Officials should understand that the petitioner was made to suffer and accept the reality of the issue,” the judgment states. “This court is mindful that freedom of speech is not absolute or unrestricted, but when this court has to weigh all the facts and circumstances, the pros and cons, it is my considered view that greater harm had been caused to the petitioner by a few public servants. As such, the petitioner needs to be adequately compensated for the loss caused to her life and reputation.”