IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application in terms of Article 105(3) of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka read with Section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act, No. 08 of 2024.

SC Contempt No: 09/2024 The Registrar, Supreme Court of Sri Lanka, Superior Court Complex, Colombo 12.

PETITIONER Vs.

Wickramage Don Dharmasiri Karunaratne, No. 57, Baseline Road, Colombo 08.

RESPONDENT Before: Yasantha Kodagoda, PC, J Kumudini Wickremasinghe, J Arjuna Obeyesekere, J Counsel: Shanil Kularatne, PC, Additional Solicitor General with Hashini Opatha, Senior State Counsel for the Petitioner Shavindra Fernando, PC with Mirthula Skandarajah and Amanda Imbulana for the Respondent Rohan Sahabandu, PC for the Bar Association of Sri Lanka Inquiry on: 21^st October 2024 and 17^th December 2024 Written Tendered by the Petitioner on 20^th January 2025 Submissions:

Tendered by the Respondent on 17^th January 2025 Decided on: 25^th February 2025 Obeyesekere, J The Respondent is an Attorney-at-Law of the Supreme Court. The Registrar of the Court of Appeal had submitted a written complaint to the Hon. Chief Justice that the Respondent, having applied to peruse the original case record in CA Case No. COC/11/2022 under a false name, and having been issued with the said case record, had torn two pages from the said case record. A complaint had also been made to the law enforcement authorities in respect of the said incident and a statement of the Respondent had been recorded.

Issuance of a Rule on the Respondent Having considered the said complaint, the Hon. Chief Justice and the Judges of this Court had decided that disciplinary proceedings must be initiated against the Respondent in terms of the provisions of the Judicature Act, No. 2 of 1978 as amended, read together with the provisions of the Supreme Court (Conduct of and Etiquette for Attorneys-at-Law)

Rules, 1988.

Accordingly, the Registrar of this Court had issued the Respondent a notice dated 27^th October 2023 under SC Rule No. 16/2023 in respect of the said complaint. The said notice, served on the Respondent by registered post and through the Fiscal at the address given by the Respondent in his aforementioned statement to the law enforcement authorities, refers to the above incident complained of by the Registrar of the Court of Appeal and proceeds to state as follows:

“His Lordship the Chief Justice and Judges of the Supreme Court considering the serious, felonious nature and the fraudulent tenor of your action find that:

(a) By the fraudulent and felonious actions in submitting a false name to peruse the Case Record of Case bearing No. COC/0011/22 and tearing two pages of the same, you have committed a breach of Rule 11 of the Supreme Court (Conduct of and Etiquette for Attorneys-at-Law) Rules, 1988 made under Article

136 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka;

(b) The aforesaid conduct amounts to acts of deceit, malpractice, crime or offence which warrants suspension from office or removal from office under Section

42(2) of the Judicature Act No. 2 of 1978;

(c) By reason of the aforesaid conduct which cannot be countenanced you have conducted yourself in a manner which would reasonably be regarded as disgraceful or dishonourable of Attorneys-at-Law of good repute and competence and have thus committed a breach of Rule 60 of the Supreme Court (Conduct of and Etiquette for Attorneys-at-Law) Rules, 1988 made under Article

136 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka;

(d) By reason of the aforesaid acts and conduct, you have conducted yourself in a manner which is inexcusable and such as to be regarded as deplorable by your fellows in the profession and have thus committed a breach of Rule 60 of the said Rule;

(e) By reason of the aforesaid acts and conduct, you have conducted yourself in a manner unworthy of an Attorney-at-Law and have thus committed a breach of Rule No. 6