The Centre for Policy Alternatives Vs. Minister of Defence (218/07)

On 28th June 2007, The Centre for Policy Alternatives, filed a Fundamental Rights petition     (SC FR 218/2007) challenging the continued inability to access private property in “Muttur (East) Sampur High Security Zone’’ and Gazette Extraordinary No 1499/25 of 30th May 2007 which demarcated properties in Sampur as a “High Security Zone” and No 1467/03 published on 16th October which had declared as a Licensed Zone under section 22A of the BOI Act No.4 of 1978.

The demarcation of High Security Zones in Sampur, constitutes an infringement and imminent infringement of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 12(1), 12(2), 14(1) (g) and 14(1) (h) of the Constitution.

CPA’s position was that many of the civilians owning land in the High Security Zone are Tamil citizens, and that they are wary of the establishment of the High Security Zone particularly in view of recent directives by high ranking Government officials of the Defence establishment to eliminate the presence of Tamils from the North and East and from certain parts of Colombo.

The leave to proceed was refused and the application was dismissed on the view that the application is misconceived.

The Centre for Policy Alternatives vs. Inspector General of Police (SCFR177/2007)

The Centre for Policy Alternatives filed a fundamental rights petition on 8th June 2007, in respect of the infringement of fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 10, 11, 12(1), 12(2) and 14(1) (g), 14(1) (h) of the Constitution.

The subject matter of this case was the statement made by the Inspector General of Police, at a press conference stating that “persons from North and East presently living in lodges in Colombo ‘without a valid reason’ would be evicted and sent back to the North- East.

The Supreme Court granted an interim order directing the Respondents not to take any steps to evacuate Tamil persons from Colombo or to prevent Tamil persons from entering and/or staying in any part of Colombo.

Kandaswamy Rasalingam Vs. Inspector General of Police (217/2007)

In June 2007, CPA filed a fundamental rights application in the Supreme Court seeking relief and effective redress in respect of the eviction of Tamil persons from Colombo and the prevention of Tamil persons from entering and / or staying in any part of Colombo. This was filed in the aftermath of several persons being forcibly rounded up in the Wellawatte police division and taken in buses to an unknown destination by the Police. The matter which is an in violation of Article 11, 12(1), 12(2), 13(1), 13(2) and 14(1) (h) of the Constitution was supported on the same day and the Supreme Court granted interim relief and issued notice on the Respondents. In May 2008, the Sri Lanka Supreme Court issued an order barring security forces from evicting ethnic Tamils without a court order.

Natsingam Suntharalingam Vs. Minister of Defence (219/07)

In June 2007 CPA supported four petitioners in filing a Fundamental Rights Application. The petitioners were Tamil citizens of Sri Lanka whose families have been residing within Trincomalee district in the East of Sri Lanka and owning property there for generations.

In terms of the Gazette Extraordinary No.1499/25 of 30th May 2007 the Petitioners were being excluded from returning to their lands despite the said the land falling within the Trincomalee Special Economic Zone having been declared as a Licensed Zone under section 22A of the BOI Act No.4 of 1978 published on 16h October 2006 by an extraordinary gazette notification No.1467/03.

The demarcation of the Trincomalee Special Economic Zone constitutes an infringement and imminent infringement of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 12(1), 12(2), 14(1) (g) and 14(1) (h) of the Constitution.

The Counsel representing the state submitted that steps are being taken for the resettlement of affected persons with due compliance of the internationally operative best practices for such process.

Gnanamuttu V Attorney General

Gnanamuttu V Attorney General
(SC Application No. 152/98)

Case argued – 15 March 1999
Court Decision – 5 May 1999

A Tamil civil engineer, Joubert Gnanamuttu, was detained at a military check point in the heart of Colombo because he did not have a special registration form. He had in his possession his national identity card and other forms of identification. He was taken to two police stations and after many hours was told that he had to retain a lawyer. A fee was demanded of him. Mr. Gnanamuttu’s assertion that he did not want a lawyer and could represent himself were ignored.

CPA sponsored an application before the Supreme Court alleging that Gnanamuttu’s fundamental rights had been violated by the military at the check point and also thereafter by the police who detained him. The Supreme Court upheld his application and ordered the State and the main police officer to pay him Rs 50,000 as compensation.

The case, which attracted widespread publicity, was important as it dealt with a form of harassment which many Tamil people living in the Western Province experienced frequently. The registration requirement is itself controversial as it is often applied in a discriminatory manner against Tamil people. The demand that they should carry the form on their person makes it worse. The court clarified that it was not mandatory for the registration form to be so carried.

The case also revealed how the police and unscrupulous lawyers collude to harass and victimise Tamil civilians.

Gnanamuttu V Attorney General