New Page 1

ENVIRONMENTAL FOUNDATION LIMITED
vs
URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF SRI LANKA

AND OTHERS
SUPREME COURT
SARATHN. SILVA,C. J.
N. K. UDALAGAMA,J AND
N. E. DISSANAYAKE,J
SC (F. R.) APPLICATIONNO. 47/2004

Constitution - Article 12(1) - Equality before law - Article 14(1) (a) freedom of speech and expression - Article 4(d) - Manner in which the sovereighty of the people shall be exercised in relation to fundamental rights - Whether petitioner being an incorporated company had legal status to invoke fundamental rights jurisdiction under Article 12(1) and 14(1)(d) of the Constitution.

An application was filed by the petitioner in the public interest and it relates to a purported Management Agreement or Lease entered into on 15.12.2003 by the 1"t respondent (UDA) with the 2nd Respondent (E. A. P. Networks (Pvt.) Ltd. - E. A. P. Ltd) whereby it was sought to hand over the management and control of the 14 acre - "the Galle Face Green", to E. A. P. Ltd. The Supreme Court granted leave to proceed and made an interim order directing the UDA to refrain from putting into operation any lease or any other kind of arrangement or agreement affecting the use, occupation and/ or management of the area described as the Galle Face Green.

Held:

(1) Although the right to information is not specifically guaranteed under the Constitution as a fundamental right, the freedom of speech and expression including publication guaranteed by Article 14(I)(a), to be meaningful and effective should carry within its scope an implicit right of a person to secure relevant information from a public authority in respect of a matter that should be in the public domain. It should necessarily be so where the public interest in the matter outweighs the confidentiality that attaches to affairs of State and official communications.

(2) The Urban Development Authority (UDA) is an organ of the Government and is required by the provisions of Article 4(d) to secure and advance the fundamental rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution.

The UDA has an obligation under the Constitution to ensure that a person could effectively exercise the freedom of speech, expression and publication in respect of a matter that should be in the public domain. Consequently, a bare denial of access to official information amounts to infringement of the petiooaer's fundamental rights as guaranteed by Article 14(I)(a) of the Constitution.

(3) The arbitrary refusal of information required by the Petitioner is an infringement of the Petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 12(1) of the Constitution.

(4) The word "persons" as appearing in Article 12(1) should not be restricted to "natural" persons but extended to all entities having legal personality recognized by law.

Sarath N Silva. CJ:

"Although Counsel contended that Article 14(1) should be read differently in view of the reference to a "citizen". I am of the view that this distinction does not cany with it a difference which would enable a company incorporated in Sri Lanka, to vindicate an infringement under Article 12(1) and disqualifies it from doing so in respect of an infringement under Article 14(1).

(6) The action of the UDA constitutes an infringement of fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 12(1) of the Constitution.

APPLICATION for relief for infringement of fundamental rights.

Cases referred to:-

1. Janatha Finance & Investments Ltd vs. Liyanage & others -1983 2 SLR 111

2. Smithkline Beecham Biological S. A. & Others vs. State Pharmaceutical of Sri Lanka & Others 1997 3 SLR 20

3. Leader Publications (Pvt) Ltd vs. Ariya Rabasinghe, Director of Information & competent Authority & others 2000 1 SLR 265

I.R. Rajapakse with Ms. Pamoda Rajakeeya for Petitioner

Romesh de Silva, P. C. with Sugath Caldera for 1st Respondent.

Shankir Paratha1ingam, P. C. with N. R. Sivendran and S. Cooray for 2nd Respondent.

Cur. vult.adv

 

November 23, 2005

SARATH N. SIL

Click Here to Read the rest of this document