K. P. Fernando, J. (CA)

The Petitioner filed the present application by way of a petition dated 16th October 2023 invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 105(3) of the Constitution, seeking to charge the Respondent with the offence of contempt of Court.

The factual background to this application relates to a pending civil action in the District Court of Kuliyapitiya (Case No. 1147/L), wherein the Petitioner has sought a declaration of title to a land identified as “Atambahamulla bim vasiya,” and other reliefs, against Gamma International (Pvt) Ltd. and its directors, including the Respondent.

It is the Petitioner’s position that during the pendency of that action, the Respondent participated in a televised interview aired on 20th September 2023 in a programme titled “Truth with Chamuditha,” wherein she made a series of statements that were false, malicious, and prejudicial to the due administration of justice.

In the said petition, the Petitioner pleads that the Respondent made grave allegations including that the Petitioner had colluded with an acting judge and multiple lawyers to execute forged deeds, that a government minister engaged in illicit activities was orchestrating the proceedings against her, and that the Petitioner was associated with underworld figures, including one "Ganemulle Sanjeewa". The Petitioner further alleges that the Respondent suggested that Attorneys who had formerly represented her, and even her own parents, were engaged in improper and unethical practices, thereby casting a shadow over the legal profession as a whole. The Petitioner claims that these utterances, made publicly and with knowledge of the ongoing proceedings, have caused real and measurable prejudice: Attorneys-at-Law have declined to appear on his behalf, and key witnesses have refused to testify. Consequently, the Petitioner submits that his ability to fairly present his case has been significantly obstructed.

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:

The Respondent filed her limited objections on 17th November 2023, taking up a series of preliminary objections to the maintainability of the application. The Respondent denies all material allegations of contempt and contends that the Petition is frivolous, vexatious, and instituted with mala fide intent.

It is her position that the Petitioner has failed to provide a complete and accurate transcript of the impugned interview and that the extracts cited in the Petition are misleading and distorted. The Respondent further states that the interview was an exercise of her right to respond to the threats she claims to have received and was not directed at the Court or intended to influence judicial proceedings. She argues that if the Petitioner considered any part of the interview defamatory, his remedy lies in instituting a civil action for defamation and not in invoking contempt jurisdiction. In any event, the Respondent contends that no utterance made by her rises to the threshold required to constitute contempt, as contemplated by law.

THE PETITIONER’S SUBMISSIONS:

Elaborating his position that the conduct of the Respondent falls squarely within the scope of contempt of court. He submits that the Respondent, by making public remarks on the merits of a pending case, has violated the principle that justice must be administered in courtrooms, not in the media. Citing Attorney General v. Times Newspapers Ltd. [1973] 3 All ER 54, the Petitioner refers to Lord Reid’s observation that;

“anything in the nature of prejudgement of a case or of specific issues in it is objectionable not only because of its possible effect on that particular case but also because of its side effects which may be far-reaching.”

The Petitioner also refers to Re Garumunige Tilakaratne (1991 1 SLR 134), where the Supreme Court reaffirmed that attempting to prejudge matters pending before a court amounts to contempt.

Further reliance is placed on Croos and Another v. Dabrera (1999 1 SLR 205) wherein Hon. Justice Shir