The Supreme Court on Friday unanimously refused leave to proceed, and dismissed the fundamental rights applications filed on behalf of 10 petitioners against their arrest by Police during the protest at the entrance to Parliament on May 4, 2022. The applications were taken up for consideration before a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Jayantha [...]

News

SC dismisses FR applications of protesters near Parliament

View(s):

The Supreme Court on Friday unanimously refused leave to proceed, and dismissed the fundamental rights applications filed on behalf of 10 petitioners against their arrest by Police during the protest at the entrance to Parliament on May 4, 2022.

The applications were taken up for consideration before a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC, comprising Justices Shiran Gooneratne and Janak De Silva.

The matter was resumed from the previous day when Counsel Pulasthi Hewamanna, appearing on behalf of the petitioners made his submissions. Both parties had filed videos and documents on what took place at the Parliament entrance.

State Counsel Shaminda Wickrema stated that as long as a protest is peaceful it is not the intention of the State or the Attorney General to quell it. In accordance with the highest standards set even by the UN, a State should not only allow peaceful protests but also should facilitate them, and that this is a vital part of a vibrant democracy.

What happened on May 4, 2022 however, was not a peaceful protest, he said. The petitioners, after handing over a letter to the Media Secretary of the Speaker, obstructed and threatened occupants of vehicles on the road to the Parliament. The videos clearly show a person in the group – amongst the Petitioners – saying “the people are ready to treat the Parliamentarians suitably when they come out”.

Just five days later, Parliamentarian Amarakeerthi Athukorale was brutally murdered after his vehicle was initially obstructed and checked by a similar crowd. Mr Wickrema stated that these actions against State organs were systemic, and that when the occurrences of the day were considered together it was obvious that the petitioners had pre-planned and converged with the intention of causing violence and getting arrested.

Video and CCTV footage showed the protesters obstructing vehicles trying to enter and leave Parliament, and some parliamentarians turning their vehicles around amidst the protesters’ threats. These were clear violations of several sections of the Penal Code and also a breach of Parliamentary Privileges.

It was submitted that the petitioners must come to Court with clean hands, and without misrepresenting facts. Mr Wickrema requested the Court to consider the effect that this kind of “frivolous” applications had on maintaining law and order in the country.

Mr Hewamanna, in his counter arguments, submitted that after handing over the letter to the Media Secretary of the Speaker, his clients were merely exercising their rights guaranteed by Article 14(1)(a) of the Constitution (Freedom of speech and expression) by protesting at the entrance to Parliament showing dissent towards parliamentarians when the Police arrested them. He stated that the Petitioners did not breach Parliamentary Privileges as there were no parliamentarians in the vehicles at the time.

The Justices queried from Mr Hewamanna if it was his submission that had a parliamentarian been inside the vehicle, the actions of his clients would constitute an offence. They further questioned if the words uttered by some of the protesters as were shown in the video did not constitute serious threats.

Responding, Mr Hewamanna stated that the petitioners moved out of the way of the vehicles and reiterated that their actions did not amount to an obstruction or breach of Parliamentary Privileges. He stated that the person shown in the videos uttering threatening words was not one of the Petitioners, although it was from the same group of people who were gathered there.

The Bench considered the material, videos played and the submissions made by Counsel and unanimously held that leave to proceed would not be granted and the petitions were accordingly dismissed.

Counsel Pulasthi Hewamanna appeared for the Petitioners. State Counsels Shaminda Wickrema and Thusara Warapitiya appeared for the Respondents.

Share This Post

WhatsappDeliciousDiggGoogleStumbleuponRedditTechnoratiYahooBloggerMyspaceRSS

The best way to say that you found the home of your dreams is by finding it on Hitad.lk. We have listings for apartments for sale or rent in Sri Lanka, no matter what locale you're looking for! Whether you live in Colombo, Galle, Kandy, Matara, Jaffna and more - we've got them all!

Advertising Rates

Please contact the advertising office on 011 - 2479521 for the advertising rates.