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

SC (FR) Application No. 233/2018

1. H. M. Punchimenike

2. S. H. M. Sumanawathi Menike Both at Moragolla, Nagollagoda.

PETITIONERS vs.

1. D. M. Bandula Saman Dissanayake, Maginpitiya Road, Dandagamuwa.

2. I. M. Premaratne, Hikokadawala, Mahama.

3. K. Wasantha Kumara, C-45, Saman Uyana, Mawathagama.

4. R. M. Saman Hemantha Rathnayake, Ihalakagama, Nikaweratiya.

5. W. M. G. K. G. Aruna Weerakoon, No. 76, Ihalagama, Mihigamuwa.

6. H. M. Danushka Buddhi Prabha Ranasinghe, No. 38/1, Katulanda, Akaragama.

1^st – 6^th Respondents at Excise Department, Kuliyapitiya.

7. Commissioner General of Excise, Excise Department, No. 353, Kotte Road, Rajagiriya.

8. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12.

RESPONDENTS Before: Jayantha Jayasuriya, PC, CJ Murdu N. B. Fernando, PC, J Arjuna Obeyesekere, J Counsel: Ms. Thilini Vidanagamage for the Petitioners J. M. Wijebandara for the 1^st – 6^th Respondents Sajith Bandara, State Counsel for the 7^th and 8^th Respondents Argued on: 9^th January 2023 and 27^th March 2023 Written Tendered by the Petitioners on 2^nd February 2021 and 14^th June 2023 Submissions:

Tendered by the 1^st – 6^th Respondents on 26^th May 2020 Tendered by the 7^th and 8^th Respondents on 10^th May 2021 Decided on: 4^th October 2023 Obeyesekere, J The 1^st Petitioner and her daughter, the 2^nd Petitioner, filed this application on 19^th July 2018 alleging that their fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 11, 12(1), 12(2), 13(1), 13(2) and 13(5) of the Constitution have been infringed by the 1^st – 6^th Respondents [the Respondents], who are officers of the Excise Department, by their actions in a series of incidents that occurred on 19^th December 2017. Leave to proceed was granted on 2^nd November 2018 but only in respect of the alleged infringement of the 2^nd Petitioner’s fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 11.

Although this application has been filed seven months after the alleged infringement, the Petitioners have filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka the day after the occurrence of the incidents complained of. Article 126(2) of the Constitution stipulates that an application must be filed within one month of the alleged infringement, and on the face of it, it is clear that the Petitioners have not complied with such requirement. However, Section 13(1) of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka Act, No. 21 of 1996 provides that, “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 be made to the Supreme Court by such person in terms of Article 126(2) of the Constitution.” The learned Counsel for the Respondents did not raise any objection with regard to the maintainability of this application for non-compliance with the provisions of Article 126(2) probably in view of the said provision and for that reason, the necessity for this Court to go into the issue of time bar or whether Section 13(1) applies to this application, does not arise.

The complaint of the 2^nd Petitioner – the first stage The incidents complained of by the 2^nd Petitioner took place during two stages on 19^th December 2017. The first was at the boutique operated by the 1^st Petitioner and the sister of the 2^nd Petitioner, Damayanthi. The second was at the office of the Excise Department at Kuliyapitiya.

The Petitioners state that the 1^st Petitioner, who was 70 years old at the time of the alleged incident, is carrying on a small boutique at her residence situated in Nagollagoda together