Appeal Court suspends Puttalam Court order to remand lady lawyer

The Court of Appeal convened yesterday (31), on the day of the Eid-al-Fitr festival, to hear a matter of grave concern upon the application made by Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) President Attorney-at-Law Rajeev Amarasuriya, and granted interim relief suspending an order by the Puttalam High Court Judge, resulting in the release of a remanded lawyer on contempt charges.

The matter at hand concerned a lady lawyer practicing in the Puttalam High Court since 2019, who was found to be in contumacious conduct. According to the charge sheet, the lawyer was found to be in contempt for failing to respectfully address the presiding judge and failing to bow when entering the courthouse. 

For the longest time, Sri Lanka has heard and dealt with contempt matters based on precedents, as there was no codified law governing contempt matters. It was under that era that people witnessed the imprisonment of actor-turned-politician Ranjan Ramanayake being put behind bars for conducting himself in a contemptuous manner. 

Due to the vagueness of what amounts to contempt or what falls outside of the offence, there were many calls for the codification of the law, thereby minimising arbitrariness or the veracity of such actions brought against individuals. It was also the hope of clearing the path between contempt and constructive academic criticism of judgments and other judicial conduct of courts and similar institutions that called for such codification. 

On 28 March, the High Court Judge of Puttalam brought charges against the Attorney, who is a member of the Puttalam bar. Proceedings commenced at about 2 p.m. on Friday (28), which then headed towards a three-day holiday, including yesterday. 

Previously, the said Judge had directed the Puttalam High Court Registrar to report the conduct of the Attorney to the Supreme Court, and no further steps were taken on the said complaint by the Supreme Court. The Attorney in question had continued with her regular appearances in Court, rendering her services to clients. 

However, on 28 March, after recording the evidence of the Personal Security Office and a Court Official, the High Court charge sheet was read to her, which consisted of two charges under Section 3(1)(a) of the Contempt of Court, Tribunal or Institution Act. Then, the Judge had committed the accused Attorney to jail with stringent bail conditions, which included “two sureties and a certificate of residence from the Puttalam area, and an asset certificate of Rs. 2.5 million.”

Given that the matter was taken up at 2 in the afternoon on a Friday, there had been practical difficulties in securing bail conditions, which resulted in the accused Attorney being committed to jail. 

As matters were proceeding in this manner, a junior lady lawyer Nadhiha Abbas had made an application seeking a relaxation of the bail conditions pointing out the “difficulty of obtaining certificate of assets during the latter hours of the working day on a Friday which preceded a long weekend.” She had also brought to the attention of the Court that the said Attorney “has been in practice for six years in the Puttalam High Court and that there was no risk of her absconding.”

Senior lawyers appearing on behalf of the BASL President today, including Faisz Musthapha, PC, Saliya Pieris PC, Faiszer Musthapha PC, Senany Dayaratne, K.W. Ashantha, S. Fernando, Thishya Weragoda, Keerthi Thilekarathne, and many others, instructed by Senior Instructing Attorney G.G. Arulpragasam, made a submission to Court on the unjust conditions in which the accused Attorney has been dealt with. 

Submissions were also made on behalf of the Attorney General who was made party to the case. 

It was also brought to the attention of the Court of Appeal that, the very Act under which she is accused of provides that she should be asked if she wishes to be tried by a different Judge than the Judge in the presence of who or hearing the contempt of court is alleged to have been committed, and that this requirement was not satisfied. Section 11(2) of the Act states: “….such Judge shall inquire from the accused whether he wishes to be tried by a Judge other than the Judge in whose presence or hearing the contempt of court is alleged to have been committed.”

Accordingly, it was submitted to the Court of Appeal yesterday that “circumstances are demonstrative of the exercise of powers in a manner that is wholly unreasonable, arbitrary, irrational, and utterly disproportionate.”

Court of Appeal President Justice M.T. Mohammed Laffar, PC and Justice K.P. Fernando after hearing the submissions made before Court granted the interim reliefs suspending the High Court Judge’s order committing the accused Attorney to jail until the final determination of the case and further. 

In its order, the Court of Appeal explaining the urgency of the convening of the Court states: “At the outset, this Court notes that although today is a public holiday marking the Eid al-Fitr festival, it was convened at the request of the President of the Bar Association, owing to the exceptional urgency and gravity of the matter. The case in question pertains to the remand of an Attorney-at-Law on charges of contempt by the Learned High Court Judge of Puttalam,” the order read. 

Issuing a statement, the BASL stated that it resolved that the provisions of this Act should be revisited and necessary representations shall be made to amend or rescind the legislation appropriately. 

“The new office-bearers and the new Executive Committee of the BASL took office on 29 March 2025. This matter was taken up at the first Bar Council meeting held on the same day, i.e. 29 March 2025, and the Council took serious cognisance of the said incident and in view of the urgency, authorised the new Executive Committee to ascertain relevant information of the said incident and to take such necessary steps and measures to address the matter at hand and to protect the rights and liberty of the said Attorney-at-Law,” the statement read. 

The petition filed before the Court of Appeal prefaces the case in the following manner, perfectly laying out the correlation in which the Bench and the Bar should function, as it has throughout, in order to ensure smooth administration of justice. 

“The smooth functioning of the system of administration of justice in Sri Lanka relies on a mutual exchange of respect between the Bench and the Bar, and any act which may be perceived as being at a variance with that fundamental and sacrosanct pact may cause a tearing of the very tapestry of the Rule of Law. Consequently, both the Bench and the Bar must take great care not to act in a manner that signals an erosion of that sacred and mutual respect and leads to a resultant discord.”