SL SC | Police officials prey to Political Victimization? Court assesses

Supreme Court of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka: The Full Bench of P. Padman Surasena, E.A.G.R Amarasekara and A.H.M.D Nawaz, JJ., dismissed an application in the matter related to political victimisation of police officers.

In the present matter the petitioners were police officials and they were subjected to victimisation due to political pressure during the period of 1994-2004. It was finally in the year 2015. that the concerned cabinet minister abiding  by the memorandum dated March 09, 2015, allowed such aggrieved police officials to submit their appeals and subsequently a high level committee was set up to examine such appeals.

After the abovementioned chain of events it came to light that the committee thus constituted made some conflicting recommendations and eventually a new committee was set up and it suggested that the relief is to be provided to 129 police officials.

The petitioners contended that out of the list of the proposed 129 officials only as many as 3 officials get the desired relief.

Another important contention from petitioners was that that as far as the cabinet decision is concerned, it should be uniformly applicable to all the officials in accordance with the rules and that differential treatment on such basis is violating the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under article 12 (1) of the Sri Lankan constitution.

Relief prayed by the petitioners:

(a) Declare that the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under article 12 (1) of the constitution has been violated.

(b) That the petitioners are eligible for promotion

(c) Direct the respondents to grant promotion to petitioners.

The respondents (Inspector General of Police) informed the bench that the implementation of the relief thus given was in accordance with official cabinet decision and there is nothing wrong in the process thus followed.

The Court relying on the judgment of Farook v. Dharmaratne, Chairman, Provincial Public Service Commission, 2005 (1) Sri L. R. 133 at page 140, concluded that the petitioners did not hold any solid ground in their case and therefore were not entitled to succeed with the prayers and eventually the case went to be decided in the favour of the respondents.[Kalwahandi Garvin Premalal Silva v. K. W. E. Karaliyadda, SF FR 383 of 2016, decided on 16-12-2021]


Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.


Advocates for Petitioners:  

Harsha Fernando

Chamith Senanayake

Yohan Coorey

Ruven Weerasinghe

Advocates for Respondents:

Rajiv Goonetilleke

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.