CA suspends Puttalam High Court Judge’s order to jail lady lawyer

Legal practitioners have expressed growing concern over the  judge’s decision, with many raising alarms about the potential misuse  of judicial powers

By Lakmal Sooriyagoda

In a swift response to an urgent appeal, the Court of  Appeal yesterday issued an interim order suspending the decision made by  the Puttalam High Court Judge to remand a lady lawyer over an alleged  contemptuous conduct.  

The decision was made following a writ petition filed by  Rajeev Amarasuriya, the newly elected President of the Bar Association  of Sri Lanka (BASL).  

The Court of Appeal two-judge-bench comprising Justice  (Acting President) M.T. Mohammed Laffar and Justice K. Priyantha  Fernando further issued an interim order directing the prison  authorities to forthwith release Attorney-at-Law Priyanka Udayangani  from remand custody. 

The petitioner had cited Puttalam High Court Judge Nadee  Aparna Suwandurugoda, Registrar of Puttalam High Court, Commissioner  General of Prison, Attorney-at-Law Priyanka Udayangani, the Attorney  General and several others as respondents.  

The controversial ruling, which was issued last Friday  (28), placed the lawyer behind bars after failing to fulfil bail  conditions in connection with charges of contempt of court. The BASL  President’s petition invoked the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction,  questioning the legitimacy of the Puttalam High Court’s order, which he  described as wrongful, arbitrary, and irrational.  

Legal practitioners have expressed growing concern over the  judge’s decision, with many raising alarms about the potential misuse  of judicial powers.  

The BASL President sought Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction to  review the Order dated March 28 made by Puttalam High Court, to commit  the Attorney-at-Law to jail, in terms of the Contempt of a Court,  Tribunal or Institution Act, No. 8 of 2024.  

The petitioner stated that the smooth functioning of the system  of administration of justice in Sri Lanka relies on a mutual exchange  of respect between the Bench and the Bar. Consequently, both the Bench  and the Bar, must take great care not to act in a manner that signals an  erosion of that sacred mutual respect.  

The petitioner stated that this instant application was  instituted, in good faith, solely with a view to remedying the effects  of an unfortunate incident, which has the potential to cause such  discord.  

The Petitioner states that Attorney-at-Law Priyanka  Udayangani who has been remanded by the impugned Order, regularly  appears before the High Court of Puttalam, and has been practising as an  Attorney-at-Law in the High Court of Puttalam since around 2019. 

On March 07, 2025, in BA/521/24, the Puttalam High Court  Judge had made several remarks regarding the conduct of the accused  Attorney during the said proceedings, the High Court judge had also  referred to the prior incident, pertaining to the same Attorney-at-Law.  

The petitioner said it appears that the High Court Judge  was of the view that the said conduct of the Attorney was of a  contumacious character.  

The Petitioner states that, however, the said proceedings  do not ex facie disclose contumacious conduct on the part of the  concerned Attorney.  

Consequently, the case bearing No. NWP/HC/PUT/SPL/02/25 was  instituted against the Attorney, on the purported basis that she had  acted in contempt of court.  

The Petitioner stated that on March 28, 2025, the High  Court Judge committed the accused Attorney-at-Law to jail, in terms of  the Contempt of a Court, Tribunal or Institution Act, read with the  Civil Procedure Code and Judicature Act, having recorded the evidence of  the Personal Security Officer and a Court Official.  

The petitioner stated that although the High Court Judge  had granted the Attorney bail in the first instance, it was impossible  to fulfil the bail conditions the same prior to the close of the  working day, inasmuch as it was close to 2 p.m. on Friday.  

The petitioner said, the bail conditions which were  required to be fulfilled for the grant of bail to the accused  Attorney-at-Law were of two sureties, a certificate of residence from  the Puttalam area, and an asset certificate of Rs.2,500,000.  

The Petitioner stated that another Attorney-at-Law, namely  Nadhiha Abbas upon being informed of the committal to jail of the  accused Attorney-at-Law, and the conditions for the grant of bail, had  spoken to the accused Attorney-at-Law who was held in custody.  

When the Court reconvened at approximately 2.00 p.m., the  Attorney-at-Law Nadhiha Abbas had made an application for the easing of  the bail conditions.  

The said application had been made to apprise Court of the  difficulty of obtaining a certificate of assets during the latter hours  of the working day on a Friday, which preceded a long weekend.  

However, the application for the easing of bail was rejected by the High Court Judge.  

It had been brought to the notice of Court that the accused  Attorney-at-Law had been practising for six years before the High Court  of Puttalam and that there was no risk of her absconding. However, the  bail conditions had not been relaxed, rendering it impossible to meet  the conditions which had been imposed.  

Petitioner was informed that the indictment was not read  out aloud in open Court, on the purported basis that the accused was an  Attorney-at-Law, and that the formal reading of the charges was not  necessary.  

It was further stated that the said impugned Order of the  High Court to commit an Attorney-at-Law to jail on such frivolous and  capricious grounds, sets a very bad precedent.  

Faisz Musthapha, P.C. with Saliya Pieris, P.C., Faiszer  Musthapha, P.C., Senany Dayaratne, K.W.Asantha S. Fernando, Thishya  Weragoda, Niranjan Arulpragasam, Keerthi Thilakaratne, Nishadhi  Wickramasinghe, Janani Abeywickrama, Lakmini Mudannayake instructed by  Senior Instructing Attorney, G.G. Arulpragasam appeared for the  Petitioner.  

Deputy Solicitor General Manohara Jayasinghe with State Counsel Navodi De Zoysa appeared for the Attorney General.