SC seeks Govt’s stance on State of Emergency and social media ban during ‘Aragalaya’

The Supreme Court has granted time to the Attorney General to inform the stance of the current President and the government regarding fundamental rights petitions filed against a group that includes former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa.

These petitions allege that fundamental rights were violated through the declaration of a state of emergency, the imposition of a curfew, and the blocking of social media for several hours during the start of the ‘Aragalaya’ protest movement in 2022.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court directed the Attorney General to submit, by way of an affidavit, the stance of the respondents, including the current President and the Secretary of Defence, on the relevant matters.

This order was issued today when three fundamental rights petitions, filed by social activist Rasika Jayakody and others, were taken up for hearing, said Ada Derana reporter.

The petitioners claim that their fundamental rights were infringed when former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa declared a state of emergency on April 1, 2022, imposed a curfew on April 3, and blocked social media for several hours on the same day.

The petitions were heard before a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Chief Justice Padman Surasena and Justices Achala Wengappuli and Priyantha Fernando.

During the proceedings, Chief Justice Padman Surasena questioned State Counsel Sajith Bandara, who appeared for the Attorney General, as to whether the Attorney General would represent former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who is named as a respondent in the petitions. In response, the State Counsel stated that the Attorney General would not appear on behalf of the former President.

The State Counsel further submitted that the state of emergency had been declared based on reports provided by intelligence services at the time, and that the social media block had been implemented through the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission of Sri Lanka.

Representing one of the petitioners, Attorney-at-Law Suren Fernando argued that the social media ban was imposed pursuant to a verbal order issued by authorities, which he contended was entirely contrary to the law.

President’s Counsel M.A. Sumanthiran, appearing for another petitioner, emphasized the importance of the Supreme Court delivering a judgment to prevent such actions from recurring in the future. 

Attorney-at-Law Pulasthi Hewamanne, representing another petitioner, submitted that it was necessary to present facts relating to the alleged illegality of the respondents’ conduct.

After considering the facts presented, the Chief Justice inquired from the State Counsel about the current government’s position on the matters raised in the petitions, noting that it was important for the court to have the incumbent government’s stance placed on record for the hearing of the case.

The State Counsel then sought time to file an affidavit setting out the position of the respondents, including the current President and the current Secretary of Defence.

Accordingly, the bench directed the Attorney General to submit, within six weeks from today, an affidavit setting out the positions of the current President, the Secretary of Defence, and the other respondents on the relevant matters.

The hearing of the petitions was subsequently postponed until May 21.