IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application under Article 17 and 126 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

SC (F/R) Application No.

282/2015 1. K. D. Chandrasekara, 2. K. D. H. Nadeeka Chandrasekara No.86/2, Sri Bodhi Road, Keppetipola Mw, Gampaha.

PETITIONERS Vs.

1. Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation, Independent Square, Colombo 7.

2. Somarathne Dissanayaka (Ex-Chairman)

2A. Mr. Ravi Jayawardena (Ex-Chairman)

2B. Ms. Enoka Sathyangani Keerthinanda (Ex-Chairman)

2C. Dr. Prasand Samarasinghe (Ex-Chairman)

2D. Senesh Dissanayake Bandara (Ex-Chairman)

All of Sri Lanka Rupavahini Coorporation, Independence Squire, Colombo 7.

3. Sunil Shantha (Ex – Director General)

3A. Saranga Wijeyarathne (Ex – Director General)

3B. Ajantha Senevirathne (Ex – Director General)

All of Sri Lanka Rupavahini Coorporation, Independence Squire, Colombo 7.

RESPONDENTS BEFORE: S. THURAIRAJA, PC, J.

MAHINDA SAMAYAWARDHENA, J. AND M. SAMPATH K. B. WIJERATNE, J COUNSEL: Udaya Bandara instructed by Jagath Nanayakkara for the Petitioner st Dr. Avanti Perera, DSG instructed by Ms. Rizni Firdous, SSA for the 1 , th

2E, 3C, and 4 Respondents.

nd th WRITTEN Respondent on 22 August 2019 and on 17 June 2020 rd SUBMISSIONS: Petitioners on 23 September 2019 th ARGUED ON: 15 July 2025 th DECIDED ON: 10 September 2025 THURAIRAJA, PC, J.

1. The Petitioners, namely, K.D. Chandrasekara (hereinafter “the 1^st Petitioner”) and K.D.H.

Nadeeka Chandrasekara (hereinafter “the 2^nd Petitioner”) are the Producer and the Director of a Tele-drama named “La Sanda Pamula” (ලා සඳ පා&ල) (hereinafter “the Tele-

drama”) respectively.

2. By a Petition dated 6^th July 2015, the Petitioners invoked this Court’s jurisdiction, alleging the violation of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 12(1), 14(1)(a), 14(1)(g) and 14A(1) of the Constitution pursuant to a decision of the Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation (hereinafter “the 1^st Respondent”) and the Chairman of Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation (hereinafter “the 2^nd Respondent”) to terminate the telecasting of the said Tele-drama.

3. This Court granted leave to proceed on the alleged violation of Articles 12(1), 14(1)(a) and

14(1)(b) of the Constitution.

FACTUAL MATRIX The Petitioners’ Narration of Events

4. The Petitioners state that they produced a Tele-drama after thorough research with the purpose of improving the human values in society at large and particularly to develop the habit of reading among the younger generation of the country. They had financed the said production by their own savings, borrowings and by mortgaging their property. The final product included 60 episodes of 21 minutes each, and as per the Petitioners, the total cost of the production had come to Rs. 8 million.

5. They had subsequently tendered the Tele-drama to several TV channels, including the 1 st Respondent, Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation.

6. After paying a preview fee of Rs. 12,000/- to the 1 st Respondent, the Tele-drama was st previewed by a panel of previewers, and the 1 Respondent had been informed by a letter th 1 dated 30 January 2013 that the Tele-drama was approved by the said panel. However, st nd in the same letter, the 1 and 2 Respondents had informed the Petitioners that the said Tele-drama will only be telecasted after finding a sponsor.

7. After approximately 1 ½ years, the 1 st Respondent had informed the Petitioners that the th Tele-drama could be telecasted at 9.00 p.m. from 4 August 2014. The Petitioners state that they agreed to the 1st Respondent’s offer, despite the price offered per episode being comparatively low. A trailer for the Tele-drama had also been aired, stating that the tele- drama would be televised from the aforementioned date. The Respondent had done so before signing any formal agreement.

8. Despite advertising, the 1 st Respondent had not televised the Tele-drama on the 4 th of August 2014. The Petitioners have not received any reasons for such actio