A. L. Shiran Gooneratne J.

1. When SC/FR/403/2015 and SC/FR/404/2015 were taken up for Argument, the respective parties agreed that a single Judgment be delivered in both matters. Accordingly, SC/FR/403/2015 was taken up for consideration. At the commencement of proceedings, learned President’s Counsel for the 3^rd Respondent, Mr. Saliya Pieris, raised a Preliminary Objection against the maintainability of the Petition on the ground of prescription.

2. By the Amended Petition and Affidavit dated 11/12/2015 in SC/FR/403/2015, the Petitioner previously attached to the Sri Lanka Air Force, invokes the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 126 of the Constitution, alleging violations of his Fundamental Rights arising from acts of physical assault, unlawful detention, procedural injustice, and harassment at the hands of superior officers. The Petitioner seeks redress for the infringement of his rights guaranteed under Articles 11, 12(1), 12(2), and 14(1)(g), and calls upon this Court to examine the legality, proportionality, and bona fides of the Respondents’ actions within the framework of constitutional justice.

3. The Petitioner avers that the alleged infringement of his Fundamental Rights by the 3^rd Respondent occurred on or about the 10/09/2015. However, the initial Fundamental Rights application was filed before this Court only on the 30/10/2015, which is beyond the one-month period prescribed under Article 126(2) of the Constitution. The said Petition or the subsequent Amended Petition dated 11/12/2015 does not provide any justification for the lapse in time.

4. It is a well-established principle of Constitutional Law that an application under Article 126(2) must be instituted within one month of the alleged infringement of a Fundamental Right. This requirement is not merely procedural but jurisdictional in nature.

5. Article 126(2) of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka reads as follows;

126. (2) “Where any person alleges that any such fundamental right or language right relating to such person has been infringed or is about to be infringed by executive or administrative action, he may himself or by an Attorney-at-Law on his behalf, within one month thereof, in accordance with such rules of court as may be in force, apply to the Supreme Court by way of petition in writing addressed to such Court praying for relief or redress in respect of such infringement. Such application may be proceeded with only with leave to proceed first had and obtained from the Supreme Court, which leave may be granted or refused, as the case may be, by not less than two judges.”

6. The Petitioner seeks to rely on a complaint purportedly lodged with the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) on 01/10/2015, marked P9, in order to invoke Section 13(1) of the Human Rights Commission Act of Sri Lanka Act No. 21 of 1996 and thereby exclude such period from the computation of time. However, the said receipt does not disclose the nature or content of the complaint, nor a copy of the complaint is filed of record. More significantly, there is no material before this Court to indicate that any inquiry was pending before the HRCSL.

7. Section 13(1) of the Human Rights Commission Act stipulates that where a complaint is made to the Commission within one month of the alleged infringement, the period during which an inquiry is pending shall be excluded from the computation of time under Article 126(2) of the Constitution.

8. Section 13(1) of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka Act No. 21 of 1996 reads as follows;

13. (1) “Where a complaint is made by an aggrieved party in terms of section 14, to the Commission, within one month of the alleged infringement or imminent infringement of a fundamental right by executive or administrative action, the period within which the inquiry into such complaint is pending before the Commission, shall not be taken into account in computing the period of one month within which an application may