Alleged offence of contempt of court: SC reissues notice returnable for 21 Nov. on Ramanayake

Thursday, 26 October 2017 00:00 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}

The Supreme Court yesterday (25) directed to re-issue notice on Deputy Minister Ranjan Ramanayake returnable for 21 November in respect of two petitions complaining of him having committed the alleged offence of contempt of court.

The Bench comprised Justices B.P. Aluvihara and Anil Gooneratne.

When the matter came up before the Court, the Defendant Ranjan Ramanayake was present in Court.

Counsel M.A. Sumanthiran appearing for the Defendant informed the Court the Defendant did not receive the notice but came to Court on the newspaper report.

Petitioners Sunil Perera and Ven. Magalkande Sudaththa Thero are seeking contempt of court action against the Deputy Minister for Social Empowerment, Welfare and Kandyan Heritage Ranjan Ramanayake for alleged statements/insults made at a press conference held on 21 August allegedly damaging the reputation of the Judiciary and lawyers.

Rasika Tissanayake with Suraj Walgama appeared for the Petitioners.

The Petitioners allege the statement amounts to disrepute and insult to the Judiciary and the lawyers of the country.

They claim the Respondent Ramanayake is liable to be punished under Article 105(3) of the Constitution.

Article 105(3) reads: The Supreme Court of the Republic of Sri Lanka and the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Sri Lanka shall each be a superior court of record and shall have all the powers of such court including the power to punish for contempt of court itself, whether committed in the court itself or elsewhere, with imprisonment or fine or both as the court may deem fit.

Petitioners state that the utterance/statement is made at a time where the international community and organisations are trying to force the country to establish special courts/tribunals to charge the war heroes with the participation of judges from overseas by infringing the sovereignty of the people.

They contend that his attack and the insult to the Judiciary of the country could lead to bifurcation in the face of complex issues faced by the country.

They state that the utterances/statements made by the Respondent ridicule and insult members of the legal profession at large who are the officers of the Court and also amount to the commission of offence of contempt of court.

(SSS)