Fri, 24 May 2024 Today's Paper

Parties raise objections against first court case under Online Safety Act

18 April 2024 02:58 pm - 5     - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}

A A A

Colombo, April 18 (Daily Mirror) - The respondent parties in the first application filed before the Colombo Chief Magistrate’s Court under the newly enacted Online Safety Act, raised objections challenging the maintainability of the application.

On April 4, the Colombo Chief Magistrate’s Court issued a conditional order preventing the respondent parties from communicating alleged false information against former Chairman of the Public Utilities Commission (PUCSL) Janaka Ratnayake. 

Court issued this conditional order in favour of the petitioner Janaka Ratnayake in terms of Section 24 (1) and Section 24 (2) of the Online Safety Act No. 09 of 2024 and directed that the order be communicated to the respondents Gayathri Bimba, Prof. Janaka Rajapaksa, Oshala Herath, Yasalal Perera (Talk with Lal), Kalpa Gunarathne (Meemasso TV) and Jamuni Kamantha Thushara by electronic means as provided for in Section 24 (4) of the Act.

Defence counsel who appeared on behalf of the respondents informed the Court that they are expecting to raise objections challenging the maintainability of the application on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. 

The matter was fixed for May 2 by Colombo Additional Magistrate Tharanga Mahawatte.

In his application Janaka Ratnayake, alleged that the respondents had circulated or attempted to circulate private information. The petitioner further alleged that he was a “targeted individual” and that one or more of the several respondents named in the petition were intentionally harassing the petitioner by communicating false statements.
An application was made on behalf of the petitioner to prevent the circulation of the said information under Section 24 of the Online Safety Act No. 09 of 2024.

President’s Counsel Kalinga Indatissa with Counsel Vishwa de Livera Tennekoon, Neranjan Iriyagolla, Rashmini Indatissa, Naveen Jayamanne instructed by Mithun Diasz appeared for the petitioner. 

President’s Counsel Saliya Pieris, Nalinda Indatissa PC, Senior Counsel Chaminda Athukorala and Hafeel Farisz appeared for the respondents.


  Comments - 5

  • Suren Sarathkumara Thursday, 18 April 2024 03:15 PM

    What is the position of the court on an act that was passed outside the guidelines of the SC? Does this mean that we are simply going to lose the position of the executive presidency if the parliament passes tomorrow an act abolishing the same disregarding the SC guideline that 2/3rd majority and a referendum is needed ?

    Don't trust political bickering Thursday, 18 April 2024 06:41 PM

    How sure are you that the corrections were not made? Have you seen the corrected final approved version or depending on the soundness of our opposition politicians who are reputed for getting their facts wrong?

    Onlooker Friday, 19 April 2024 04:45 AM

    Political bickering? Then why does not the govt publish the full act AS PASSED. Not yet a word from them - guilty??

    johan Thursday, 18 April 2024 05:14 PM

    Not only parties we general public also oppose to this because 1) supreme court recommendations are not incorporated 2) Interim Govt. has no authority to pass any bill in parliament.No elected President and PM in office to approve this bill.

    Sokrates Thursday, 18 April 2024 05:23 PM

    Janaka Ratnayake is a public figure in this country. In this respect, he has to accept it when reports are made about him, whether this contains true or untrue information.


Add comment

Comments will be edited (grammar, spelling and slang) and authorized at the discretion of Daily Mirror online. The website also has the right not to publish selected comments.

Reply To:

Name - Reply Comment