Determination to be communicated to Speaker 

By Lakmal Sooriyagoda

The Supreme Court on last Friday (04) concluded the arguments put forward in support and against the Bill titled “Contempt of a Court, Tribunal or Institution”.
Accordingly, all parties were directed to submit their written submissions regarding the Special Determination petitions on or before Tuesday (08).

The Bill titled “Contempt of a Court, Tribunal or Institution”  was placed on the Order Paper of the Parliament on July 18, 2023.

Colombo Law Faculty lecturer Visakesha Chandrasekeram, Attorney-at-Law Basil Fernando, Kingsley Karunaratne, President and Secretary of the Colombo Law Society Sanjeewa Dassanayake and Sandun Nagahawatta filed these petitions naming the Attorney General as respondents.

The Petitioners stated that the Bill seeks to amend Article 105 of the Constitution without complying with the procedure set out in Article 82. 
The petitioners maintained that the constitution is the supreme law of the country and thereby no statute can override the provisions of the supreme law.

The Petitioners further stated that this Bill has been formulated to provide for the uniform application of the law relating to the contempt of a court, tribunal, or institution, to provide for the procedure in punishing the contempt of a court, tribunal or institution. However, they alleged that the Bill disregards the need of the Bill, in that, the Bill is not necessary in a democratic society. The Petitioners further state that currently, the offence of scandalizing court or judges is considered virtually obsolescent and one that is damaging to the sanctity of the judiciary.
They said the provisions of the bill are contrary to the basic principles of contempt under common law, and it aims to criminalize freedom of speech and expression. 

The petitioners further said the Bill does not set out the offence of contempt with sufficient precision to enable a citizen to regulate his conduct, which has the effect of stifling freedom of speech and expression. They stated the Bill appears to violate the principles of Natural Justice and fair trial.

The petitioners are seeking a declaration that the bill in whole or in part thereby requires the approval by people at a referendum in addition to a two-thirds majority in Parliament.
The main contention made on behalf of the Attorney General was that the Bill was required to enhance the sovereignty of the People, and to respect, secure and advance fundamental rights because the law as it presently stands gives wide discretion to the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal to punish for contempt and the parameters of contempt of court are not known. It was further said that the Constitution as it presently stands provides for a law to be brought in to provide for the law of contempt of court, and that this Bill does not seek to alter the Constitution. 

Supreme Court three-judge-bench comprised Justice Murdu Fernando, Justice Shiran Goonaratne and Justice Achala Wengappuli.
Saliya Pieris PC with Counsel Pulasthi Hewamanna, Harini Jayawardhana, Githmi Wijenarayana and and Fadhila Fairoze appeared for the petitioners. Counsel Thishya Weragoda appeared for journalist Tharindu Jayawardena. Additional Solicitor General Nerin Pulle appeared for the Attorney General.