Duty of the State to ensure equality and protection of the law — Personal liability of police officers for violation — Quantum of compensation.

 

786

2025

Present: Yasantha Kodagoda, PC, J., Janak De Silva, J., and Menaka Wijesundera, J.

VITHANAGE SUNIL v. L. P. B. SAMARASINGHE, OIC, KOTTAWA POLICE STATION, AND OTHERS

S.C. (F.R.) No. 259/2016

Decided on: 10th October 2025

Fundamental Rights — Articles 11, 12(1) and 13(1) of the Constitution — Alleged torture and degrading treatment — Fabrication of charges — Contradictory medical reports — Duty of the State to ensure equality and protection of the law — Personal liability of police officers for violation — Quantum of compensation.

Facts

The petitioner, a private bus operator, complained that on 9 July 2016 he was brutally assaulted by police officers attached to the Kottawa Police Station, led by the Officer-in-Charge and other named officers. He alleged that he was beaten inside his own bus, taken to the police station, and further assaulted while in custody. He was thereafter falsely charged with possession of 550 mg of heroin and produced before the Magistrate of Homagama.

Although the Magistrate ordered that he be examined by a Judicial Medical Officer (JMO), the petitioner was not produced immediately. The first JMO report, dated 10 July 2016, recorded no injuries, whereas a second JMO report, obtained upon direct judicial order on 12 July 2016, recorded multiple injuries to the petitioner’s face, chest, and arms. Several eyewitness affidavits, including those of the petitioner’s wife and neighbours, confirmed the assault. The respondents denied the allegations and relied on the police “B” report claiming lawful arrest.

The petitioner sought declarations that his fundamental rights under Articles 11, 12(1), and 13(1) had been violated and compensation against the respondents.

Held

Per Menaka Wijesundera, J. — Application allowed.

The evidence, particularly the second JMO report and consistent eyewitness affidavits, clearly established that the petitioner had been subjected to physical assault and degrading treatment by police officers. The contradictions between the two medical reports and the JMO’s inability to identify the person first examined indicated an attempt to conceal evidence. Such conduct amounted to torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 11 of the Constitution.

The failure to produce the petitioner promptly before a JMO and the filing of a false charge under the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance constituted a violation of Article 12(1) — the right to equal protection of the law.

The arrest of the petitioner without informing him of the reasons, coupled with the fabrication of a heroin charge, breached Article 13(1). The Court held that the respondents acted in bad faith and that their omissions were equally culpable as the direct acts of assault.

Accordingly, the petitioner’s rights under Articles 11, 12(1), and 13(1) were infringed by the 2nd and 3rd respondents, while the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th respondents were liable for failing to prevent the violation.

Principles and Precedents (in nutshell)

Hettiarachchige Gemunu Tissa v. Jayaratne (SC FR 417/2016, 2024) — The Court reaffirmed that every human being has an inherent right to dignity and protection from torture; courts must carefully examine corroborative evidence in alleged violations of Article 11.

Amal Sudath Silva v. Kodituwakku, Inspector of Police (1987 2 Sri LR 119) — Article 11 embodies an absolute right against torture, not subject to any restriction or limitation; violations demand judicial redress irrespective of circumstance.

Mrs. W. M. K. De Silva v. Chairman, Ceylon Fertilizer Corporation — For an infringement of Article 11, the conduct must amount to maltreatment of a high degree; minor ill-treatment does not suffice.

Sampath Kumara v. OIC, Katunayake Police Station — Powers of public officers are held in trust for the people; their misuse for improper purposes offends Article 12(1).

Dissanayaka v. Superintendent, Mahara Prison — The Court must determine the validity of arrest objectively; executive assertions are not conclusive, and the State must furnish material to justify detention.

Channa Pieris v. Attorney General — An arrest cannot be based on vague or conjectural suspicion; reasonable grounds must exist, and any arbitrary arrest violates Article 13(1).

Held Further 

The Court emphasised that police powers cannot be exercised arbitrarily or vindictively. The deliberate attempt to substitute another individual for the JMO examination and to fabricate a heroin charge was a grave breach of public trust and a misuse of authority.

Each officer bears personal liability for his role in the violation, reflecting the principle that fundamental rights violations cannot be shielded by institutional immunity.

Decision 

Application allowed.

A declaration was made that the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 11, 12(1), and 13(1) were violated by the 1st to 6th respondents.

Compensation of Rs. 1,000,000 was ordered, to be paid personally and jointly by the said respondents.

READ JUDGMENT CLICK