IGP’s FR petition against compulsory leave deferred again to 26 May

• SC permits former President Maithripala Sirisena to be added as respondent
• IGP in FR appeals to have his compulsory leave overturned 

By S.S. Selvanayagam

The Supreme Court yesterday again deferred for 26 May for support for granting of leave to proceed in respect of the fundamental rights violation petition filed by the Inspector General of Police (IGP) Pujith Jayasundara against the action to send him on compulsory leave and agreed to have former President Maithripala Sirisena added as a respondent.  

The bench comprised Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, Justices S. Thurairaja and Gamini Amarasekera, and directed to add former president Sirisena as a respondent.

Petitioner Jayasundara cited the Attorney General, Senior DIG C.D. Wickremaratne, Members of the Constitutional Council, SIS Director DIG Nilantha Jayawardena, National Intelligence Chief A.N. Sisira Mendis and former Defence Secretary Hemasiri Fernando as respondents.

Counsel Viran Corea with Niran Anketel and Dishinka Nelson, instructed by Vithana Pathirana, appeared for the petitioner. Additional Solicitor General Indika Demuni de Silva, with Senior State Counsel Dr. Avanti Perera, appeared for the Attorney General, Acting IGP and the President. Counsel Anuja Premaratne appeared for former Defence Secretary Fernando.

The petitioner is seeking a declaration that the actions of the President or Members of the Constitutional Council have infringed his fundamental rights, equality and equal protection of the law guaranteed under Article 12(1).

He seeks another declaration that the actions of the President or the 3A to 3J respondents have infringed the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 14(1)(g).

He is seeking a declaration that the operation of the letter dated 29 April 2019 and consequential steps constitute an infringement of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 12(1) or Article 14(1)(g) of the Constitution. 

Another declaration he is asking is that the actions of the President or the Members of the Constitutional Council to exclude him from office without recourse to proper procedure or any steps to remove him from office without due recourse to the provisions of the Removal of Officers (Procedure) Act No. 5 of 2002 constitute infringement of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 12(1) or Article 14(1)(g). 

He is seeking Court to set aside the decision of the President to send him on compulsory leave.   

He is also seeking an order to set aside the appointment and confirmation by the President or the Members of the Constitutional Council of the second respondent C.D. Wickremaratne as Acting Inspector General of Police.

He is pleading for interim orders suspending the decision of the President to send him on compulsory leave and an order suspending the appointment or confirmation by the President or the 3A to 3J respondents of the second respondent as Acting Inspector General of Police until the hearing and final determination of this application. 

He is pleading for an interim order preventing steps by the President to remove him from the office of Inspector General of Police until the hearing and final determination of this application.