FR petition of printer’s wife fixed for hearing on 7 June

Saturday, 14 January 2012 00:00 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}

By S.S. Selvanayagam

The Supreme Court yesterday (13) fixed for hearing on 7 June the fundamental rights petition filed by the wife and the brother-in-law of the Printer Jayampathi Bulathsinhala who allegedly printed posters against the President.

The Bench comprised Justices Saleem Marsoof, P.A. Ratnayake and Sathya Hettige.

Counsel Saliya Peiris appearing for the Petitioners made an application for filing Counter Affidavit as the Objection of the Respondent had been filed only on 1 January. Senior State Counsel Lakmali Karunanayake for the Attorney General had no objection. The Petitioner was granted six weeks time for filing Counter Affidavit.

The Court had already granted leave to proceed with the fundamental rights violation petition for the alleged infringement of their fundamental rights to the freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention.

Petitioners Kumudini Wijewardena and her younger brother Kelum Wijewardena cited ASP Nish-antha Soysa, IGP Mahinda Balasooriya, Mirihana HQI and the Attorney General as Respondents.

Petitioners alleged that they were arrested in order to keep them as hostages to ensure Jayampathi Bulathsinhala’s surrender.

Petitioners stated they were arrested on 8 September 2010 at 9 a.m. and her husband was produced to the Mirihana Police Station by his Attorney at 1p.m. They said they were produced before the Gangodawila Magistrate around 7 p.m. and released on bail. On 27 September, they were discharged from the action in the Magistrate’s Court, they said.

They alleged that there was no evidence to prove that they had committed or were in connection with any criminal offense as alleged by the Police.

They complained that their arrest and detention have detrimentally affected them, causing damage to their character and reputation and have been subjected to humiliation resulting mental trauma.

They contend that in any event, no citizen should be discriminated for holding a dissenting political opinion to that of the executive or the ruling party.

They maintains that in totality of the said circumstances, their arrest and detention is unfair, malicious, arbitrary, illegal and amounts to infringement of their fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

They are also seeking the Court to award them Rs. 5 million each as compensation with costs.