1. Introduction

This judicial review examines the decision of the Court of Appeal of Sri Lanka in Deshabandu Tennakoon v. Hon. B. A. Aruna Indrajith Buddhadasa & Others (CA Writ Application 168/25), where the Petitioner, the Inspector General of Police (IGP), sought relief against an arrest order issued by the Magistrate’s Court of Matara. The case involves fundamental legal principles concerning judicial review, procedural fairness, rule of law, and the discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction.

2. Background Facts

The Petitioner challenged an arrest warrant issued by the learned Magistrate of Matara in relation to an incident in Weligama between December 29 and 31, 2023. The Petitioner contended that the order was politically motivated, procedurally flawed, and violated his fundamental rights under Article 13(1) of the Constitution. The Respondents, including judicial and law enforcement authorities, argued that the Petitioner had engaged in misconduct, suppressed material facts, and failed to exhaust alternative legal remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction.

3. Legal Issues Considered

A. Suppression of Material Facts

The Court reaffirmed the principle that full and frank disclosure is required when invoking discretionary writ jurisdiction. In W. S. Alphonso Appuhamy v. Hettiarachchi (77 N.L.R. 131), the Supreme Court held that a party who suppresses or misrepresents material facts is not entitled to relief. Similarly, in Dahanayake v. Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation Ltd.([2005] 1 SLR 67), it was established that non-disclosure alone is sufficient to dismiss an application without considering the merits.

The Petitioner failed to submit the entire Magistrate’s Court record, including the B report, inquest findings, and journal entries, which were essential to assessing the legality of the arrest order. The Court invoked Section 114(f) of the Evidence Ordinance, which allows the presumption that withheld evidence would be adverse to the withholding party.

B. Legality of the Arrest Order

The Petitioner argued that the Magistrate’s order was unlawful as it was issued without first summoning him, in violation of Section 136(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, the Court noted that the Magistrate acted based on multiple reports, including inquest findings and police submissions, rather than solely on the police report marked P20.

Citing Victor Ivan v. Sarath N. Silva ([1998] 1 SLR 340), the Court emphasized that an individual is entitled to a proper investigation, and judicial officers must ensure fair and competent procedures before issuing arrest orders. The Court also referenced Dayananda v. Weerasinghe and Others ([1983] 2 SLR 84), where it was held that Magistrates should not act as mere “rubber stamps” but must independently scrutinize the facts before them.

The Court further noted that:

1. The special police team dispatched by the Petitioner was unauthorized.
2. Official police records lacked entries regarding the operation.
3. The deceased officer was not promptly taken to the nearest hospital, raising suspicions.
4. Attempts were made to manipulate records and mislead the investigation.

C. Availability of Alternative Remedies

It is a settled principle that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked when alternative remedies are available. In Linus Silva v. The University Council of the Vidyodaya University (164 N.L.R. 104), the Supreme Court ruled that certiorari cannot be granted if an alternative adequate remedy exists. The Court also cited Tennakoon v. Director-General of Customs ([2004] 1 SLR 53), where it was held that the petitioner must first exhaust statutory remedies before seeking judicial review.

The Petitioner had the right to challenge the arrest order through an appeal or revision in the High Court but failed to do so. His attempt to invoke writ jurisdiction without exhausting these remedies was therefore unjustifiable.

D. Rule of Law and Compliance with Court Orders

The Court strongly condemned the Petitioner’s actions in evading arrest, noting that the head of the police force should uphold, rather than undermine, the law. The judgment referenced Prohibitions del Roy (1607), where Lord Coke ruled that even the monarch is subject to legal principles. The Court emphasized that in a democratic system, no individual, regardless of rank, is above the law.

Additionally, in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (AIR 1994 SC), the Indian Supreme Court reiterated that “one who comes to court must come with clean hands.” The Petitioner’s failure to comply with the arrest warrant before seeking relief further weakened his case under the “comply and complain” principle.

4. Court’s Final Ruling

The Court of Appeal dismissed the writ application and ordered:

1. The execution of the Magistrate’s arrest order against the Petitioner.
2. Action against individuals aiding the Petitioner in evading arrest.
3. Costs of Rs. 10,525.00 imposed on the Petitioner.

5. Conclusion and Implications

This decision reinforces the judiciary’s role in upholding the rule of law and ensuring that even high-ranking officials are subject to legal scrutiny. The ruling serves as a precedent for judicial independence in politically sensitive cases and highlights the importance of procedural fairness, full disclosure, and exhaustion of alternative remedies in writ applications.

By rejecting the application, the Court has upheld principles of judicial integrity, ensuring that legal proceedings are not obstructed by executive interference.

Read Full Judgement