Bona Fides of Police Action – Balance between Individual Liberty and Public Safety

Vindani Priyadarshika Sooriyarachchi v. Mangala Dehideniya, Superintendent of Police, and Others

 

Supreme Court of Sri Lanka – SC/FRA No. 293/2020

Before: K. Priyantha Fernando, J., S. Thurairaja, PC, J., and Sampath Abayakoon, J.

Argued on: 15.09.2025 – Decided on: 24.10.2025

 

Fundamental Rights – Article 12(1) of the Constitution – Equality and Equal Protection of the Law – Search without Warrant – Section 77(2) of the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance – Reasonable Belief – Bona Fides of Police Action – Balance between Individual Liberty and Public Safety

Background and Facts

 

The Petitioner alleged that the Respondents – police officers attached to the Colombo-North Division and Grandpass Police Station – unlawfully entered her residence at No. 75/09, Ferguson Road, Colombo 14, during her absence, by breaking the locks and subsequently replacing them with new ones without a search warrant. No contraband or suspicious items were found during the search. She contended that such conduct was arbitrary, violated her right to equality and equal protection of the law under Article 12(1), and amounted to a breach of her fundamental rights.

 

The Respondents maintained that their actions were lawful and carried out during a cordon-and-search operation in the “75 Watta, Thotalanga” area following credible information regarding the storage of narcotics. They claimed to have acted in good faith under powers vested by Section 77(2) of the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, which authorises entry without a warrant when obtaining one would afford the offender an opportunity to escape or conceal evidence.

 

Issues

 

Whether the Respondents’ entry into the Petitioner’s premises without a warrant was arbitrary and in violation of Article 12(1) of the Constitution.

 

Whether the police officers acted within the scope of their authority under Section 77(2) of the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance.

 

Whether the bona fides and reasonableness of police action could preclude a finding of infringement of fundamental rights.

 

Held

 

The Court emphasized that the reasonableness of police action must be judged in light of the circumstances prevailing at the time, particularly where credible information suggests the presence of a serious offence such as narcotic possession.

 

Section 77(2) authorizes police officers not below the rank of Sergeant to enter premises without a warrant where there are reasonable grounds to believe an offence under the Ordinance is being committed and obtaining a warrant would risk loss of evidence or escape of offenders.

 

The affidavit and contemporaneous records (2R2, 2R4) established that the 2nd Respondent acted upon credible information and subsequently took measures to secure the premises and inform local officials.

 

The actions of the Respondents were bona fide, without malice or discrimination, and fell within their statutory powers.

 

The Court reiterated that while individual liberty and sanctity of home are constitutionally protected, such rights must be balanced against the public interest in effective law enforcement and the suppression of serious crime.

 

The Petitioner failed to demonstrate any arbitrariness, bad faith, or discriminatory conduct to sustain a violation of Article 12(1).

 

Principles of Law

 

Fundamental Rights – Article 12(1): Equality before the law does not preclude lawful differentiation where police act under statutory authority based on reasonable belief (vide Wijesekera v. AG [2001] 3 SLR 46).

 

Reasonable Belief and Bona Fides: The test of reasonableness must be applied objectively, considering whether the officer had credible information and acted promptly to prevent an offence (Gunawardena v. Pathirana [1989] 2 SLR 153).

 

Search without Warrant: Section 77(2) of the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance provides a specific statutory exception to the general rule requiring a warrant, justified by urgency and risk of evidence destruction.

 

Judicial Deference to Operational Decisions: Courts must avoid substituting hindsight for operational judgment in time-sensitive policing decisions (Anura Bandaranayake v. Rajaguru, IGP [1999] 1 SLR 104 distinguished).

 

Balance of Rights: The constitutional guarantee of equality and liberty must coexist with society’s interest in crime prevention; bona fide actions under statutory authority do not amount to arbitrary conduct (Fernando v. Sri Lanka Police SC FR 38/2015).

 

Decision

 

The Supreme Court held that the Respondents’ conduct did not amount to a violation of the Petitioner’s fundamental rights under Article 12(1). The entry and search were justified under Section 77(2) of the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance.

Application dismissed.

 

K. Priyantha Fernando, J. – Delivered the Judgment - S. Thurairaja, PC, J. – Agreed - Sampath Abayakoon, J. – Agreed.

RAED JUDGMNENT CLICK