Friday Dec 13, 2024
Friday Dec 13, 2024
Friday, 15 December 2017 02:29 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
By S.S. Selvanayagam
The Supreme Court yesterday ordered Sirasa TV to provide the complete CD recording of the statement allegedly made by Deputy Minister Ranjan Ramanayake on 21 August 2017.
The bench comprising Justices B.P. Aluvihara, Anil Gooneratne and Vijith K. Malalgoda fixed the alleged charge of contempt of court against Deputy Minister Ramanayake to be mentioned on 22 January 2018 in respect of two petitions accusing him of the offence.
When the matter came up on 21 November 2017 before a bench comprising Chief Justice Priyasath Dep, Justices Eva Wanasundera and Vijith K. Malalgoda, the Counsel for the complainant-petitioners told court that he wanted the complete recording of the statement made by the respondent Ranjan Ramanayake. The court had allowed the application and directed the registrar to ask for the full recording.
Chief Justice Priyasath Dep had nominated a bench comprising himself, Justices Eva Wanasundera and Vijith K. Malalgoda for the hearing of the petitions.
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 Ramanayake for his alleged insult 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 bringing disrepute to the Judiciary and the lawyers of the country. They claim 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 the imprisonment or fine or both as the court may deem fit.”
Petitioners state that the utterance is being made at a time when the international community and other organisations are trying to force the country to establish special courts and tribunals to charge war heroes with the participation of judges from overseas by infringing the sovereignty of the people.
They contend that his attack and the insult on the Judiciary could lead to complex issues faced by the country.
They state that the statement of the respondent ridicules members of the legal profession who are the officers of the court.
