Violating Fundamental Rights: SC orders Police Spokesman to pay Rs.60,000 as compensation

By Lakmal Sooriyagoda

The Supreme Court, by a majority decision, has ordered the current Police Media Spokesman Wootler Udayakumara to personally pay Rs. 60,000 as compensation to an Attorney-at-Law for violating his fundamental rights during an incident at the Negombo Police Station in 2017.  

The Court found that Wootler Udayakumara, who was serving as the Headquarters Inspector of the Negombo Police Station at the time of the incident, had unlawfully interfered with the professional duties of the petitioner, Attorney-at-Law Priyalal Sirisena.  

The Supreme Court also directed Madushanka Dias, the former Officer-in-Charge of the Miscellaneous Complaints Unit of the Negombo Police Station, to pay Rs. 30,000 as compensation for his role in violating the petitioner’s rights guaranteed under Article 14(1)(g) of the Constitution, which ensures the freedom to engage in a lawful profession.  

In addition to the compensation, both respondents were ordered to pay Rs. 10,000 each as legal costs to the petitioner.  

The judgement was delivered by Justice Janak De Silva, with Justice Kumudini Wickremasinghe concurring, following a fundamental rights petition filed by Attorney-at-Law Priyalal Sirisena. The petitioner had alleged that the two police officers obstructed him from carrying out his professional responsibilities when he attempted to represent a client at an inquiry conducted at the Negombo Police Station.  

However, in a dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena dismissed the petition without costs, stating that he was unable to agree with the petitioner’s claim that his fundamental rights to engage in his profession had been infringed under the circumstances.  

According to the petitioner, he had been called upon by a client involved in a domestic violence matter to provide legal assistance at an inquiry at the Negombo Police Station. He informed the police of an interim protection order issued by the Magistrate’s Court, which, he argued, should have prevented the inquiry from proceeding in the manner it did.  

However, the petitioner alleged that the first respondent, Madushanka Dias, not only proceeded with the inquiry but also ordered him out of the room, thereby depriving him of the opportunity to represent his client. The inquiry was reportedly conducted with the parties present together despite the existence of the protection order.  

Justice Janak De Silva observed that statements made by second respondent Wootler Udayakumara reflected “an abject lack of appreciation” of the emotional state of a victim of domestic violence and demonstrated a “misguided perception” of the role of an Attorney-at-Law.  

In its ruling, the Court emphasized that Article 14(1)(g) of the Constitution guarantees an Attorney-at-Law the fundamental right to engage in their profession, including representing clients in forums where they are legally entitled to do so.  

The Court also highlighted the Police (Appearance of Attorneys-at-Law at Police Stations) Rules, 2012, which require police officers to treat lawyers entering police stations courteously and to provide a fair and patient hearing. The rules further prohibit the use of force, abusive language, or intimidation against attorneys.  

Justice Janak De Silva specifically noted that the second respondent had breached these rules through statements directed at the petitioner and the legal profession at large.  

The judgement further noted that attorneys are bound by professional ethics under the Supreme Court (Conduct of and Etiquette for Attorneys-at-Law) Rules of 1988 to act diligently in the best interests of their clients.  

Senior Counsel Lakshan Dias appeared for the petitioner. Senior Deputy Solicitor General Rajiv Goonetillake appeared for the Attorney General.