{"id":297,"date":"2020-03-21T11:26:25","date_gmt":"2020-03-21T11:26:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rightscaselaw.ibj.org\/?page_id=297"},"modified":"2020-03-21T11:32:49","modified_gmt":"2020-03-21T11:32:49","slug":"fernando-v-attorney-general-and-another","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/rightscaselaw.ibj.org\/?page_id=297","title":{"rendered":"Fernando v. Attorney-General and another"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"\"><tbody><tr><td><strong>Case   Reference\/File No<\/strong>   <\/td><td><strong>[1983] 1 SriLR 374   <\/strong><\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Case   Name<\/strong>   <\/td><td><strong>Fernando v. Attorney-General   and another    <\/strong><\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Court   <\/strong>   <\/td><td><strong>Supreme Court  <\/strong>  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Date   of judgement<\/strong>   <\/td><td><strong>24<sup>th<\/sup> and 25<sup>th<\/sup>   Feb 1983 <\/strong>  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Judges<\/strong>   <\/td><td><strong>Samarakoon   J   <br>Wanasundera   J   <br>Victor   Perera J   <\/strong><\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Parties<\/strong>   <\/td><td><strong>Petitioner <\/strong><br>Fernando    <br><br><strong>Vs<br><br>Respondents<br><\/strong><br>1<sup>st<\/sup> respondent \u2013 The   Attorney-General    <br>2<sup>nd<\/sup> respondent \u2013   Superintendent of Police, Police Station, Vavuniya   <br>3<sup>rd<\/sup> and 4<sup>th<\/sup>   respondents \u2013 Police officers, Police Station, Vavuniya    <\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Keywords<\/strong>   <\/td><td><strong>Fundamental rights under   Articles 10, 11, 13 (1) of the Constitution \u2013 Section 77 (1) and (3) of the   Police Ordinance, No. 16 of 1865 \u2013 Section 45 of the Referendum Act, No. 07   of 1987 <\/strong>  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Head  note<\/strong>   <\/td><td>\n  &nbsp;\n  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Brief   facts<\/strong>   <\/td><td>The petitioner, a medical practitioner attached to the Base Hospital, Vavuniya,   purportedly organized a procession and a fast against the arrest and   detention of three Christian Clergymen, a Doctor, a University Lecturer and   his wife who had been arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Dr.   Rajasunderam who was the Organizing Secretary of the Gandiyan Society was the   organizer of the fast. The plan was to gather at the St. Anthony\u2019s Church at   9.00 am and go in procession to the Young Men\u2019s Hindu Association to stage   the fast. According to the petitioner they were informed that the police did   not permit the procession. The petitioner submitted that the previous plan   was changed and the fast was to be staged at the Church premises. It was the   petitioner\u2019s version that the police entered the Church premises and attacked   the peaceful fasters and the petitioner was arrested along with several   others and was assaulted. The respondents\u2019 version was that the procession   entered the highway and was blocked by the police. Then the people squatted   on the road and the rear of the procession was in the Church compound and the   people in the church premises were peacefully seated while the others were on   the road squatting and fasting. The police were attacked with stones by the   participants of the procession which caused injury to the police officers and   damage to police jeeps which were parked opposite the Church. The respondents\u2019   version was supported by the statement of Rev. Alban Rajasingham, Parish   Priest of St. Anthony\u2019s Church on which the court observed the controversy   between the two versions. The Court rejected the petitioner\u2019s position that   the people in the Church compound were participants of a peaceful assembly,   considering the fact that \u201cthe tail cannot disown the<a> <\/a>head   when it suits it\u201d. The Court further held that the procession was illegal in   terms of section 45 (a) of the Referendum Act, No. 07 of 1981 and section   77(1) of the Police Ordinance, No. 16 of 1865.   &nbsp;<br><br>The police had the power to act in the way, they   did and it does not matter if they purported to do it in reference to the   wrong provisions of law.   <\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Judicial   Precedence<\/strong>   <\/td><td>The   court held that the police do not have to quote chapter and verse from   statutes and legal literature to justify an arrest.   <\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Legislation   Title<\/strong>   <\/td><td><strong>The Constitution of the   Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka 1978, Police Ordinance, No. 16 of   1865, Referendum Act, No. 07 of 1987 <\/strong>  <\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Area<\/strong>   <\/td><td><strong>Articles 10, 11, 13(1) of the   Constitution; Section 77 (1) of the Police Ordinance, No. 16 of 1865; Section   45 of the Referendum Act, No. 07 of 1987   <\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-button\"><a class=\"wp-block-button__link has-text-color has-very-dark-gray-color has-background has-cyan-bluish-gray-background-color\" href=\"https:\/\/rightscaselaw.ibj.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2020\/03\/007-SLLR-SLLR-1983-1-FERNANDO-v.-ATTORNEY-GENERAL-AND-ANOTHER.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Download Case File<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Case Reference\/File No [1983] 1 SriLR 374 Case Name Fernando v. Attorney-General and another Court Supreme Court Date of judgement 24th and 25th Feb 1983 Judges Samarakoon J Wanasundera J Victor Perera J Parties Petitioner Fernando Vs Respondents1st respondent \u2013 The Attorney-General 2nd respondent \u2013 Superintendent of Police, Police Station, Vavuniya 3rd and 4th respondents [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":164,"featured_media":0,"parent":254,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-297","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/rightscaselaw.ibj.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/297","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/rightscaselaw.ibj.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/rightscaselaw.ibj.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rightscaselaw.ibj.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/164"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rightscaselaw.ibj.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=297"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/rightscaselaw.ibj.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/297\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":306,"href":"https:\/\/rightscaselaw.ibj.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/297\/revisions\/306"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rightscaselaw.ibj.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/254"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/rightscaselaw.ibj.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=297"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}