Case Title:- SOMAWATHIE v.

WEERASINGHE AND OTHERS (Sri LR 12)

Issue:-Does the wife of the deceased have “locus standi” or in layman’s terms right to
appear Infront of the court to present a fundamental right violations case pertaining to her
husband?

Parties:-Somawathie-the wife of the deceased who’s been allegedly arbitrarily arrested and
tortured by two police officers and the two accused police officers

Rules:- Sub clause 2 of Article 126 stipulates that in a case of an alleged FRV that only the
party the whose right have been directly infringed or an attorney in law representing the
said party may appear at court as a petitioner. It does not explicitly allow Immediate family
or dependents to act as petitioners on behalf of the harmed party.

Application:-The majority of the court decided in favor of entertaining the petition. The
Court conceded to the lack of a provision that allows court actions from the immediate
family of a harmed party. However it’s court’s view that such a provision is not necessarily
unrequired in this situation in the first place. Court points how given the obvious practical
inability of the deceased petitioner to produce himself at the court, the petition in question
shouldn’t be considered that of the immediate family but rather as a petition produced by
the deceased himself. They further noted how barring the immediate family of a victim from
seeking justice is probably not in favor of the “spirit of the constitution” nor probably was
the original intention of the constitution makers. Dissenting minority then argued how
constitution should only be liberally interpreted in scenarios where ambiguity lies and that
the precise wording of article 126(2) did not warrant such a liberal interpretation. It’s their
view that doing so, was trespassing judicial powers conferred to them. If it’s indeed
erroneous to not to entertain the immediate family of a harmed party as a petitioner, they
held that such an error should be presented to the parliament not the supreme court.

Critique: -
The judgement of the supreme court here is applaudable for two fundamental reasons.
Firstly it should be highly appreciated that SC did not allow a literal interpretation of the
constitution to bar the immediate family of the harmed party from seeking restitution. To
do so would be to serve injustice. It’s equally commendable that the judgement here,
adheres to international standards of victim compensation. To elaborate, In OHCHR Basic
Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of
International Human Rights Law and other relevant international documents the term “victim” is characterized
such that it also includes the immediate family or dependants of the direct victim. However , the
opposition’s claims that the judgment was “tweaking” judicial powers that it bypassed the
constitution has some level of truth to it. The reception to this judgement wouldn’t nearly
have been this well had the “tweaking” been done to dismiss the victim. To simply put ,the
judgment advertently or inadvertently catered to the emotions of the general public. The
common sentiment that then resonates with all is that there’s an irrefutable need for sound
constitutional reforms within the country. Ever since the inception of 1978 constitution,
constitutional reforms primarily have focused on where should power lie, this judgment
presents how there are much needed, less controversial and easily implementable reforms
that could and should be prioritized before pondering over the question of power.