SC directs AG to elaborate reasons for exempting Ranjan from contempt of court charge

By S. S. Selvanayagam

The Supreme Court yesterday directed the Attorney General to furnish draft Rule for Contempt on 30 July against Deputy Minister Ranjan Ramanayake to show cause as to why he should not be charged, in respect of two petitions complaining of him for having committed the alleged offence of Contempt of Court.

Bench comprised Chief Justice Priyasath Dep, Justices Priyantha Jayawardena and Murdu N. B. Fernando.

When the matter came up, President’s Counsel M. A. Sumanthiran, with Jerusha Crossette Thambiah appearing for Ranjan Ramanayake, submitted that procedure should be followed in all courts, according to Section 793 of the Criminal Procedure Code in Chapter 9.

He submitted that according to the abovementioned clause it is the Complainant that should forward the summons containing the charges to be served on the Respondent. He further contended that the Attorney General has no role in the proceedings.

Additional Solicitor General Priyantha Navana, appearing for the Attorney General, cited former Minister S. B. Dissanayake’s case and submitted that the procedure followed in that case was that it was the Attorney General who drafted the Rule for Contempt.

Counsel Sumanthiran submitted that in re (in the legal case of) S. B. Dissanayake could not be followed, because the expressed provision of the law was not followed in that case. He contended that therefore it is per curiam (by or denoting decision of an appellate court in unanimous agreement) and the practice of the Court cannot override the expressed provision of law.

Petitioners Sunil Perera and Ven. Magalkande Sudaththa Thero are seeking Contempt of Court action against Deputy Minister Ranjan Ramanayake for alleged statement/insult made at a press conference held on August 21, allegedly damaging the reputation of the Judiciary and the Lawyers. Rasika Tissanayake with Suraj Walgama appeared for the Petitioners.

The Petitioners allege the statement amounts to a 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 was 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 into the Judiciary of the country, could lead to bifurcation of complex issues faced by the country.

They state that the utterance/statement made by the Respondent, ridiculing and insulting the members of the legal profession at large, who are the Officers of the Court, also amounts to the commission of offence of Contempt of Court.

M. A. Sumanthiran PC with Jerusha Crossette Thambiah appeared for Ranjan Ramanayake. Additional Solicitor General Priyantha Navana with Senior State Counsel Suharsha Herath appeared for the Attorney General.