IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application for a ruling of contempt of the court under Article

105(3) of the Constitution Nagananda Kodithuwakku, The General Secretary, Vinivida Foundation, 99, Subadrarama Road, Nugegoda.

SC/Contempt/ 02/2022 Petitioner Vs Jayantha Jayasuriya, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Sri Lanka, Colombo 12. Respondent Before: Murdu N. B. Fernndo, PC., J.

E.A.G.R. Amarasekara, J.

A.H.M.D. Nawaz, J.

Janak De Silva, J. and Achala Wengappuli, J.

Counsel: The Petitioner appears in person.

Sanjay Rajaratnam, PC., Attorney General, with Ms. Kanishka de Silva DSG, Ms. S. Ahmed SC and R. Gooneratne SC appears as Amicus Curiae.

Argued on: 31-01-2023 Decided on: 11-08-2023 Oder of Court The Petitioner an Attorney-at-Law, a public interest litigation activist and Vinivida Foundation General Secretary, filed the instant application dated 12^th December, 2022 in terms of Article 105(3) of the Constitution against the Respondent, Jayantha Jayasuriya, the incumbent Chief Justice.

The Petitioner in paragraph two of his petition, referred to the Respondent and the cause of action as thus;

(2) The Respondent is the incumbent Chief Justice of the Republic of Sri Lanka. In this contempt matter he is ‘charged’ for contempt of court for a contemptuous act committed by him on 20^th September, 2017 undermining the authority of the Supreme Court and bringing it into disrepute, when he was the Attorney General of the Republic of Sri Lanka…. (emphasis added)

The Petitioner, in paragraph 18 of the petition, referred to the alleged contemptuous act as “an opinion given by the Respondent in his capacity as the Attorney General on 20^th September, 2017 to the Honorable Speaker of the Parliament of Sri Lanka”. A copy of the opinion was annexed to the petition marked X12 The Petitioner pleaded, that such advice was patently flawed and the Respondent had deliberately undermined the good office of the Attorney General and the independence of the judiciary. The Petitioner also contended that X12 advice, tantamount to a direct insult to the authority and an affront to the dignity of the judiciary and therefore moved inter-alia for the following relief:

(b) issue summons on the Respondent to show cause as to why he should not be punished by the Supreme Court for insulting and undermining the authority of the Supreme Court and thereby committing an offence of contempt of the Supreme Court;

(c) charge the Respondent on the offence of contempt of court in terms of Article 105(3) of the Constitution;

(d) issue a Rule Nisi; and (e) to make the Rule Nisi into Absolute and impose an appropriate sentence for defying the rule of law and bringing the court into disrepute. (emphasis added On 16^th December, 2022 by a chamber order, the listing judge directed the Petitioner’

instant application be listed for notice on 31^st January, 2023 before a nominated bench of five Judges of the Supreme Court. A direction was also made to issue notice on the Attorney General to appear and assist this court as Amicus Curiae.

When this matter was taken up for support on 31^st January, 2023 the Attorney General Sanjay Rajaratnam, PC appearing as Amicus Curiae moved that this application be dismissed in limine and contended that the Petitioner’s application is misconceived in law. His challenge was twofold.

Firstly The learned Attorney General contended that the application of the Petitioner cannot be maintained before this court, as the papers filed before court i.e., the petition and the supporting affidavit sworn to by the Petitioner Nagananda Kodithuwakku contained, many an offensive and slanderous averments, flawed and erroneous statements, distorted facts, misleading and absolutely false accusations, willful suppression of material facts and twisted legal contentions and is misconceived and thus not in accordance with the law.

Mr. Rajaratnam, also contended that the Attorney General’s opinion reflected in the document X12, in respect of Provincial