Home / News/ SC refuses to grant Leave to CB officers FR Petition

SC refuses to grant Leave to CB officers FR Petition


Comments / {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}} Views / Tuesday, 6 February 2018 00:35

Facebook

By S.S.Selvanayagam     

Supreme Court yesterday (5 February) refused to grant leave to proceed with the fundamental rights petition filed by a Central Bank officer against the officers of the Attorney General Department but without costs.

The Bench comprised Chief Justice Priyasath Dep, Justices Eva Wanasundera and Vijith K. Malalgoda.

The Petitioner S. Pathumanapan, in his original petition, cited Senior Additional Solicitors Dappula de Livera and Yasantha Kodagoda, Senior Deputy Solicitors General Milinda Gunetilleke and Dilan Ratnayake, Senior State Counsels Shaheeda Barrie, Dr Avanti Perera, and Nayomi Wickremasekera, and State Counsel Danushan Kaneshayogan, all of who were assisting the Bond Commission to the investigation as well as the Central Bank Governor Dr Indrajit Coomaraswamy, Appointed Members of the Monetary Board, Central Bank Legal and Compliance Department Director  P.V.L. Nandasiri, Presidential Commission Chairman Justice K.T. Chitrasiri, members Justice Prasanna Sujeewa Jayawardena and Kandasamy Velupillai along with Murtaza Jafferjee, IGP Pujitha Jayasundara and the Attorney General as Respondents.

M.A. Sumanthiran PC with Niran Anketell, Junita Arulanantham and Jerusha Crossette Thambiah appeared for the Petitioner. Senior Additional Solicitor General Farzana Jameel with Deputy Solicitor General Nerin Pulle appears for the Respondents.

Petitioner complained against some officials of the Attorney General’s Department that they had humiliated him in a degrading manner, in the course of Presidential Commission Inquiry into the Treasury Bond matter.

Petitioner complained of the alleged treatment he suffered at the hands of the Senior Additional Solicitors General and Deputy Solicitor General, acting with other respondents: the threats, intimidations, duress, harassment, humiliating treatment and unlawful invasion of privacy amounts to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment / punishment.

He alleged that by failing to permit him to testify before the Bond Commission, and seeking to intimidate, threaten, harass and otherwise penalise him for taking a position inconsistent with that they have suggested to him, the Respondents from the Attorney General Department have subverted the purpose of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry Act, prevented the truth from emerging, and sought to deprive the Commissioners, the President and the country as a whole of access to his facts and evidence.

By seeking to punish and victimise him, including by attempting to cause disciplinary proceedings to be instituted against him, despite the singular lack of any evidence against him led at the Commission, the Respondents assisting the investigation have abused their power and authority for collateral purposes, he alleged.

The 18th Respondent Murtaza Jafferjee – a private citizen with no power or authority to conduct investigations for and/or on behalf of the Commission or the State for the purpose of intimidating him and secure evidence required for their purpose, the 1st Respondent Senior Additional Solicitor General and 1st to 8th Respondents who are assisting the interrogation have acted in violation of the law, he alleged.

He alleged the actions of the respondents amount to an infringement and imminent infringement of his fundamental right to the freedom from torture, freedom from arbitrary arrest, freedom of lawful occupation and profession as well as consultative jurisdiction under article 129(1) which reads: If at any time, it appears to the President of the Republic that a question of law or fact has arisen or is likely to arise which is of such nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court upon it, he may refer that question to that Court for consideration and the Court may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, within the period specified in such reference or within such time as may be extended by the President, report to the President its opinion thereon.     

Supreme Court yesterday (5 February) refused to grant leave to proceed with the fundamental rights petition filed by a Central Bank officer against the officers of the Attorney General Department but without costs.

The Bench comprised Chief Justice Priyasath Dep, Justices Eva Wanasundera and Vijith K. Malalgoda.

The Petitioner S. Pathumanapan, in his original petition, cited Senior Additional Solicitors Dappula de Livera and Yasantha Kodagoda, Senior Deputy Solicitors General Milinda Gunetilleke and Dilan Ratnayake, Senior State Counsels Shaheeda Barrie, Dr Avanti Perera, and Nayomi Wickremasekera, and State Counsel Danushan Kaneshayogan, all of who were assisting the Bond Commission to the investigation as well as the Central Bank Governor Dr Indrajit Coomaraswamy, Appointed Members of the Monetary Board, Central Bank Legal and Compliance Department Director  P.V.L. Nandasiri, Presidential Commission Chairman Justice K.T. Chitrasiri, members Justice Prasanna Sujeewa Jayawardena and Kandasamy Velupillai along with Murtaza Jafferjee, IGP Pujitha Jayasundara and the Attorney General as Respondents.

M.A. Sumanthiran PC with Niran Anketell, Junita Arulanantham and Jerusha Crossette Thambiah appeared for the Petitioner. Senior Additional Solicitor General Farzana Jameel with Deputy Solicitor General Nerin Pulle appears for the Respondents.

Petitioner complained against some officials of the Attorney General’s Department that they had humiliated him in a degrading manner, in the course of Presidential Commission Inquiry into the Treasury Bond matter.

Petitioner complained of the alleged treatment he suffered at the hands of the Senior Additional Solicitors General and Deputy Solicitor General, acting with other respondents: the threats, intimidations, duress, harassment, humiliating treatment and unlawful invasion of privacy amounts to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment / punishment.

He alleged that by failing to permit him to testify before the Bond Commission, and seeking to intimidate, threaten, harass and otherwise penalise him for taking a position inconsistent with that they have suggested to him, the Respondents from the Attorney General Department have subverted the purpose of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry Act, prevented the truth from emerging, and sought to deprive the Commissioners, the President and the country as a whole of access to his facts and evidence.

By seeking to punish and victimise him, including by attempting to cause disciplinary proceedings to be instituted against him, despite the singular lack of any evidence against him led at the Commission, the Respondents assisting the investigation have abused their power and authority for collateral purposes, he alleged.

The 18th Respondent Murtaza Jafferjee – a private citizen with no power or authority to conduct investigations for and/or on behalf of the Commission or the State for the purpose of intimidating him and secure evidence required for their purpose, the 1st Respondent Senior Additional Solicitor General and 1st to 8th Respondents who are assisting the interrogation have acted in violation of the law, he alleged.

He alleged the actions of the respondents amount to an infringement and imminent infringement of his fundamental right to the freedom from torture, freedom from arbitrary arrest, freedom of lawful occupation and profession as well as consultative jurisdiction under article 129(1) which reads: If at any time, it appears to the President of the Republic that a question of law or fact has arisen or is likely to arise which is of such nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court upon it, he may refer that question to that Court for consideration and the Court may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, within the period specified in such reference or within such time as may be extended by the President, report to the President its opinion thereon.


Share This Article

Facebook Twitter


DISCLAIMER:

1. All comments will be moderated by the Daily FT Web Editor.

2. Comments that are abusive, obscene, incendiary, defamatory or irrelevant will not be published.

3. We may remove hyperlinks within comments.

4. Kindly use a genuine email ID and provide your name.

5. Spamming the comments section under different user names may result in being blacklisted.

COMMENTS

Today's Columnists

Soaring heights of NPLs in banking

Thursday, 27 June 2019

Capital inadequacy, political interference, abuse of power, wasteful and unproductive expenditure, corrupt deals, circumventions of regulatory directions, unscrupulous lending operations, imposed IMF and WB conditions for reforms, and window-dressed


New Land Policy: Ideal alternate development strategy, but accompanying policies needed

Thursday, 27 June 2019

It is reported that the Government has prepared a law to grant freehold possession of farm land held under lease from the Government. This may be a revision of the Land Development Ordinance (LDO) of 1935. This article proposes to discuss the pros a


Need for an education revolution: Future of our kids and the nation is at risk – Part II

Thursday, 27 June 2019

Lessons to be learnt from the Asian educational giants A journalist of New York Times requested Hideki Shirakawa, a Nobel laureate, to describe Japanese culture. He said, “Fundamentally, Japanese culture is based on rice farming. Rice cultivation r


Country’s reconciliation with English and Moragahakanda

Thursday, 27 June 2019

When the country received independence from British, it was blessed with an efficient administration, a high standard in education, and also sound foreign exchange reserves; the country was admired by other countries. The three major and several mino


Columnists More