2022-09-19
Following are points for a concerned person’s letter to the Chief Justice and judges of the Supreme Court (SC) on the issue of the use of contempt of court law.
We are disturbed by the manner in which the power given to the SC under Article 105(3) of the Constitution (the power to punish for contempt with imprisonment and/or fine) has been used in the recent past. We refer particularly to the cases of torture victim Anthony Michael Emmanuel Fernando, and politicians S.B. Dissanayake and Ranjan Ramanayake.
Our concerns are as follows:
In all three of these cases, the sentences that have been imposed involve imprisonment. In the case of Fernando, for one year of rigorous imprisonment (RI) for allegedly talking out loud in court, in the case of Dissanayake for using the phrase “shameful court” in a public meeting outside courts to two years of RI, and in the case of Ramanayake referring to judicial corruption for which he was punished with RI for four years plus the loss of participation in elections for seven years. Already in the first two cases, the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) having considered the communications made to it by Fernando and Dissanayake held that these sentences of imprisonments amounted to disproportionate punishment and that under international law, disproportionate punishment amounts to illegal detention. Under the Sri Lankan law, protection from illegal detention has been guaranteed by the Constitution by naming it as a violation of fundamental rights (FR). Thus, this practice of disproportionate punishment itself is a violation of the international and Sri Lankan laws and the fact that no reasons have been given for such disproportionate and harsh punishment aggravates the situation. Thus, this use of disproportionate punishments which is now getting established as a permanent practice is a threat to the very idea of a fair trial and also the notion of the rule of law. It is likely to have a deadening effect on the entire system as lawyers, litigants and anyone else who is dealing with the system of the administration of justice is likely to be seriously intimidated to pursue their claims for justice under such circumstances.