UNAWATUNA

Vs.

ATTORNEY GENERAL AND OTHERS

SUPREME COURT
JAYAWARDENA, J.
MALALGODA, J.
FERNANDO, J.
SC/FR/357/2018
JANUARY 10, 2019

Fundamental rights-Articles 24(3) and (5) of the Constitution-Right to a translation of the record-Restrictions on the application of Article 24(3)-Abuse of process

Article 24(3) of the constitution makes provision for a person to obtain a translation of the record maintained in court.

However, the legislature has restricted the application of this Article to a judge, juror, party or applicant or any person legally entitled to represent such party or applicant in the proceedings of a case, to obtain a translation of the proceedings maintained in the court, if he is not conversant with the language used in court. The restrictions imposed shall not be interpreted in such a way that it will result in delay or abuse of process in the administration of justice.

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

Petitioner appears in person.

Nerin Pulle, D.S.G., for the Attorney-General.

cur. adv. vult.

October 14, 2020

JAYAWARDENA, J.

The petitioner filed the instant fundamental rights application alleging that the Proclamation issued by the former President, by Gazette No. 2096/70, dated 9th November, 2018 dissolving the Parliament and calling for election of the Members of Parliament, is contrary to Articles 10, 12(1), 12(2), 14(1)(a), 14(1)(c) and 14(1)(f) of the Constitution.

The petitioner stated in his petition that he is an Attorney-at-Law and that the instant application has been filed in the interest of the public.

The instant application was filed against the Attorney-General in terms of Article 35 of the Constitution on the basis that the aforementioned Gazette was issued by the former President. Both the former President and the Attorney-General were cited as the 1st respondent. The Chairman and the Members of the Election Commission have been cited as the 2nd respondent.

In his petition, the petitioner prayed inter alia;

(i) to suspend the operation of the Proclamation issued by the President dissolving the Parliament and calling for General Elections in the Gazette No. 2096/70 dated 9th November, 2018 until the conclusion of this application,

(ii) to stay the holding of Parliamentary Elections by the 2nd respondent until the conclusion of this application,

(iii) to declare that the 1st respondent has violated the petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 10, 12(1), 12(2), 14(1)(a), 14(1)(c) and 14(1)(f) of the Constitution, and

(iv) to quash the said Proclamation dissolving Parliament contained in the Gazette No. 2096/70 dated 9th November, 2018.

Before the instant application was supported for leave to proceed, the petitioner filed a motion stating that the fundamental rights application

that the judgment of the said application had been delivered on 13th December, 2018.

Thereafter, the petitioner appeared in person and supported the said motion. The petitioner submitted that he had sent a letter by registered post to the former President, requesting a Sinhala translation of the judgment delivered in the said application No. SC/FR/351/2018 on 13th December, 2018. However, as the petitioner did not receive a response to the aforementioned letter. he filed the instant motion requesting the court to issue a Sinhala translation of the said judgment delivered in the said fundamental rights application.

Article 24(3) of the Constitution makes provision for a person to obtain translations of the records maintained in courts.

Article 24(3) of the English text of the Constitution states as follows:

Any judge, juror, party or applicant or any person legally entitled to represent such party or applicant. who is not conversant with the language used in court, shall be entitled to interpretation and to translation into Sinhala or Tamil provided by the State