WANASINGHE

Vs.

ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,  NUGEGODA AND OTHERS

SUPREME COURT
SURASENA, J.
AMARASEKARA, J.
GOONERATNE, J.
SC/FR/216/2014
MARCH 15, 2021

Fundamental rights-Articles 12(1), 126(2) of the Constitution-Time bar-Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka Act, No. 21 of 1996, section 13(1) inquiry before the Human Rights Commission

The petitioner filed this application before the Supreme Court on 18. 7.2014 alleging the infringement of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 12(1) of the Constitution by a series of acts committed by the 1st respondent, the Assistant Superintendent of Police, and claiming a continuous violation of his fundamental rights. The last alleged act of infringement, according to the petition, occurred on 7.1.2014. The petitioner averred in his petition that he had lodged a complaint with the Human Rights Commission on 21.1.2014 and produced a receipt issued by the Human Rights Commission. A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the respondents that the application was time barred.

Held:

1. The petitioner filed the application more than six months after the last alleged act of infringement of his fundamental rights. This is in violation of Article 126(2) of the Constitution which requires the

application to be filed within one month of the alleged infringement. There is no continuous violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights.

2. Section 13(1) of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka Act states that the period within which the inquiry into a complaint is pending before the Commission should not be taken into account for the purpose of computing the period of one month stipulated in Article 126(2) of the Constitution. According to section 14 of the Human Rights Commission Act, the Human Rights Commission is not statutorily obliged to investigate every complaint received by it regarding the alleged violation of a fundamental right. Hence the bare averment in the petition that a complaint was lodged with the Human Rights Commission along with the receipt issued by the Human Rights Commission annexed will not take the application of the petitioner out of the period of limitation.

3. The 1st respondent in his affidavit specifically stated that the application is time barred and raised this matter at the beginning of the argument. The preliminary objection is entitled to succeed.

Cases referred to:

1. H.K. Subasinghe v. Inspector General of Police and seven others (SC/APPEAL/16/1999, SC Minutes of 11.09.2000)

2. Ranaweera and others v. Sub Inspector Wilson Siriwardena and others [2008] 1 Sri LR 260

3. Ramesh Cooray v. Jayalath, Sub Inspector of Police and others [2008] 2 Sri LR 43

4. Amura Deshapriya Alles and another v. Road Passenger Services Authority of the Western Province and others (SC/FR/448/2009, SC Minutes of 22.02.2013)

APPLICATION under Article 126 of the Constitution for infringement of fundamental rights.

Ravindranath Dabare for the Petitioner.

Madhawa Tennakoon, S.S.C., for the Hon. Attorney General.

cur. adv. vult.

June 23, 2021

SURASENA, J.

The Petitioner filed the petition pertaining to the instant application in this Court on 18-07-2014, praying inter alia for;

i. Leave to proceed under Articles 11, 12(1) and 13(1) of the Constitution;

ii. A declaration that the 1st Respondent/all the Respondents and/or the state has infringed or has been in continuous infringement of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the Petitioner under Articles 11, 12(1) and 13(1) of the Constitution;

iii. Compensation of Five Million Rupees (Rs. 5,000,000/=).

This Court on 13-10-2014, having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner, had decided to grant leave to proceed in respect of the alleged violations of Article 12(1) of the Constitution.

When the matter was taken up for argument on 15-03-2021, the learned Senior State Counsel raised a Preliminary Objection against the maintainability of