Continuous Assessment No.

COM1240 – Legal Environment

“I, G.A Gayan Akila – CPM 20870, hereby declare that this essay, submitted to the Legal Studies

Unit of the Faculty of Management Studies and Commerce of the University of Sri

Jayewardenepura, is my own, original work; wherever another author’s work has been used, it was

done using the appropriate mechanism and has been properly acknowledged in accordance with

established academic conventions.

I acknowledge that if I am found to be in violation of the above, I will be subject to a fitting penalty

in accordance with the examination by-laws of the University”.

1|Page
 Sriyani silva V. Iddamalgoda and others SCNO.471/2000(FR)

In this case the Petitioners fundamental right guaranteed by Articles 11 violated by the

Respondents. Which is the freedom from torture and from cruel and inhuman treatment or

punishment.

The petitioner is the widow of an army deserter who arrested by the Payagala Police Station for an

open warrant signed by the Magistrate. after 4 days the detainee before the Magistrate and hands

him over to the remand prison. And he died at the Magazine Prison, Welikada.

The petitioner alleges that the deceased died in consequence of torture by the Paiyagala Police

during an excessive period of detention. The petitioner visited the deceased on 4 days and observed

the deceased being assaulted and with serious injuries by police officers.

According to 1st respondent stated that the deceased had not been assaulted or tortured, and that he did

not witness any assault or torture and 2nd respondent claimed that the deceased was arrested using

reasonable force. They denied assaulting him as alleged.

The petitioner's version was credible. The police version was contradictory, improbable and had

to be rejected. The deceased died of torture by the police. According to the post-mortem report the

deceased was serious injured and cause of death was "acute renal failure due to muscule cutaneous

trauma". So, the judge decision was, the deceased's fundamental rights under Articles 11 was

infringed by the 2nd respondent. and awarded a sum of Rs.800,000/- as compensation and costs to

the detainee's wife and the minor child to be shared equally. And the State was required to pay

Rs.700,000/ and Rs.50,000 / each, personally by the Officer in Charge of the police station and the

Officer in Charge, Crimes.

2|Page
Jayawardana And Others V. Dissanayake and Others (S.C.F.R.NO. 231/2012)

In this case The Petitioners fundamental right guaranteed by Article 12(1) that all persons are equal

before the law and are entitled to the equal protection of the law have been violated by the

Respondents.

The Petitioner, the minor child was not admitted to D.S. Senanayake College because his residence

being situated on the State land.

The 1st Petitioner, the father of the child state that 30 years ago he was born in the residence that

the Petitioners are living at present. And also argued 78 marks was awarded including ‘the 50

marks that resident in the feeder area of the school’ at the interview. Thereafter for no reason

indicated by the 4 Respondents to the Petitioners, the child’s name was not included in the

temporary list of children to be admitted. however other children who were awarded below 78

marks have got selected.

Respondents state the Petitioners, the child’s name was not included in terms of Circular No.

2011/18.Because is that they, occupant of the residents were in unlawful state land.

The judge decision has "The Residency' in the Circular should not be interpreted as lawful or

unlawful because it is not a subject matter for the interview board. If the fact that the child is

"resident' within the area in terms of the Circular for the relevant period is proved. So, this

prevented the child from admitting to the school by reason of arbitrary and unreasonable conduct

by the Respondents which violates the fundamental rights Article 12(1) of the Petitioners.

Therefore, direct that the Child should be admitted to the school and shall be entitled to Rs.

30,000as costs payable by the State.

3|Page
 Nadarajah Gunasekaran V. Gotabaya and Others (S.C F.R. No.167/2013)

In this case The Petitioner filed a case on the alleged infringement of fundamental right enshrined

in 14(1) (h) in the constitution. Which state all person shall have freedom of movement and of

choosing his residence within Sri Lanka

The Petitioner was living on his property at Thayiddy. and he had been displaced in 1990 due to

Military operations in the area. But after cessation of hostilities, they have been displaced are

prevented from occupying their property as Valikamam area is fenced out and notice boards

erected prohibiting any one from entering the area.

Petitioner argued that to the best of his knowledge there is no law or regulation declaring the area

in which his property is situated as a “High Security Zone” and that with the lifting of State

Emergency under provisions of the Public Security Ordinance and it is illegal to declare any area

as this. And these actions have derived from engaging in their livelihood, resulting in an

infringement of their fundamental rights.

1st Respondent’s position is that procedure established under the Land Acquisition Act will be

followed and the Petitioner would be afforded an opportunity to substantiate his claim in respect

of the land in question. and the acquisition procedure in the area situated within the Cantonment

had been set in motion way back in 2013, under the Land Acquisition Act and the requisite notices

under the said Act had been published.

So the court decided the 1st Respondent had acted in good faith and in compliance with the

applicable statutory provisions and the Petitioner had failed to establish that his fundamental rights

enshrined under 14(1)(h) have been infringed. The application is dismissed without costs.

4|Page