Rajapaksha Pathirage Justin Rajapaksha vs. Prasanna Rathnayake and other police officers SC/FR 689/2012

Facebooktwitterlinkedinrssyoutube

”The petitioner by this petition, inter alia, seeks a declaration to the effect that his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 11,12,13(1) and 13(2) of the Constitution have been violated by the 1st to 5th and/or 6th and/or 8th Respondents. This court, by its order dated 12.2.2013, granted leave to proceed for alleged violations of Article 11 of the Constitution against 1st to 6th Respondents; for alleged violations of Article 13(1) and 13(2) of the Constitution against the 1st Respondent and for alleged violations of Article 12(1) of the Constitution against the Respondents. The order made by the court states as follows”

”I have earlier held that the 6th Respondent has violated the fundamental  rights of the Petitioner guaranteed by Article 12(1) of the constitution. I have observed in this judgment that the 6th Respondent honestly told the truth to the learned Magistrate and that his behaviour would be considered when granting compensation. I direct the 6th Respondent to pay Rs.10,000/= to the Petitioner. The 1st and the 6th Respondents violated the fundamental rights of the Petitioner when they were functioning as Police Officers in the course of their
official duties. I therefore hold that the State should also pay compensation. I order 19 that the State should pay Rs.25, 000/- to the Petitioner. I direct the IGP to take steps to ensure the payment of this amount to the Petitioner. I have earlier in this judgment held that the arrest and detention of the Petitioner by the 1st Respondent are wrongful and illegal and that he has violated  Article 11,12(1),13(1) and 13(2) of the Constitution. I therefore direct the IGP to conduct investigation under the guidance of the Attorney General against the 1st
Respondent and consider instituting criminal proceedings against the 1st Respondent. I direct the Registrar of this Court to forward a copy of this judgment to the IGP and the Attorney General to take appropriate action.”

Read full judgement here>>

Social Sharing

Related posts