JUNG KIM AND ANOTHER

Vs.

JAYASINGHE

SUPREME COURT
ALUWIHARE, J.
FERNANDO, J.
SURASENA, J.
SC/CONTEMPT/3/2016
JULY 10, 2020

Contempt of court-False affidavit evidence-Interference with the administration of justice-Article 105(3) of the Constitution

The respondent submitted a written complaint to the Supreme Court against an Attorney-at-Law alleging professional misconduct in a case filed in the District Court of Colombo where the respondent was the defendant. The Supreme Court referred the complaint to the Bar Association of Sri Lanka for an inquiry and the Bar Association reported to the Supreme Court that there was no truth in the allegations of the respondent and the Supreme Court may deal with the respondent for contempt of court.

The counsel who appeared for the respondent did not challenge the fact that the allegations made against the Attorney-at-Law were untrue. His only contention was that the statements do not amount to contempt of court.

Held:

1. The respondent having full knowledge of her dealings with the Attorney-at-Law made false representations to the Supreme Court by way of an affidavit, the contents of which for all intents and purposes ought to be treated as evidence.

2. Contempt of court is a multifaceted offence for which it is difficult to lay down a precise definition. In English common law, contempt of court is an act or omission calculated to interfere with the due administration of justice.

3. The Constitution vests the superior courts inter alia with the power to punish for contempt of court. The power of the Supreme Court

to do so is contained in Article 105(3) of the Constitution. The jurisdiction to punish as contempt any act of interference with the administration of justice is vested with the Supreme Court as a superior court of record. It is part of the inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and an essential adjunct for safeguarding the rule of law.

4. The three essential elements required to establish that an individual has given false evidence are (a) the legal obligation to state the truth; (b) the making of a false statement; and (c) the belief in its falsity.

5. Making false representations to the Supreme Court knowing them to be false and thereby attempting to mislead the court amounts to contempt of court, as it is a direct interference with the administration of justice.

Cases referred to:

1. Reginald Perera v. The King (Privy Council Appeal No. 53 of 1950)
2. Attorney General v. Times Newspapers (1973) 2 AII ER 54; [1974] AC 273
3. Attorney General v. Leveller Magazine Ltd [1979] AC 440 at 449
4. Attorney General v. Newspaper Publishing PLC [1988] Ch 333 at 368
5. In the Matter of D.M.S.B. Dissanayake (SC/RULE/1/2004, SC Minutes of 07.12.2004)
6. The Secretary, Hailakandi Bar Association v. State of Assam A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 1925 at 1930,1931

APPEAL from the Judgment of the Court of Appeal.

Kuvera de Zoysa, P.C., with Piume Kulatilake and Ameer Maharoof for the Petitioner.

Razik Zarook, P.C., Seevali Amithirigala, P.C., with Sazana Karunathilake and Dharani Sirisena for the Respondent.

cur. adv. vult.

July 15, 2021

ALUWJHARE, J.

A Rule issued by this Court on 26th July 2016, called upon the Respondent, Don Bandumali Jayasinghe (hereinafter sometimes referred to as

"Bandumali Jayasinghe") to show cause as to why she should not be dealt with for an offence of contempt of the Supreme Court, punishable under Article 105(3) of the Constitution, committed, intentionally and/or willfully, by making false statements to this Court.

The Rule

In the exercise of the Jurisdiction vested in the Supreme Court in terms of Article 105(3) of the Constitution the Rule issued against Bandumali Jayasinghe was to show cause as to why she should not be punished for having committed the following offences of contempt of the Supreme Court;

(1) That the Respondent,

(a) Submitted a written complain