SC issues ruling against Secretary of Transport Ministry over fundamental rights case

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Secretary of the Ministry of Transport, Highways, Ports and Civil Aviation, Professor Kapila Perera, violated the fundamental human rights of Additional Secretary W.S. Sathyananda by declaring that his services were no longer required and subjecting him to humiliation and mental distress.

The judgment was delivered by Supreme Court Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere, with the concurrence of Justices Sobhitha Rajakaruna and Janak de Silva, following the hearing of a Fundamental Rights petition filed by the aggrieved Additional Secretary.

The petitioner stated that he is a senior officer of the Sri Lanka Administrative Service with nearly 30 years of experience in various positions within the public administration sector.

He further noted that he was appointed as Additional Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, Highways, Ports and Civil Aviation through a letter issued by the Ministry of Public Administration on December 18, 2024.

He claimed that he reported for duty on the same day, but around 12.30 p.m., the Ministry Secretary entered his office and informed him that his services were not required, instructing him to leave the premises.

The petitioner alleged that the Secretary to the Ministry acted in an improper manner unbecoming of a senior public official, causing him humiliation and severe mental distress. He argued that this conduct amounted to a violation of his fundamental human rights and sought a declaration from the Supreme Court in this regard.

Delivering the judgment, Justice Obeyesekere noted that, according to Extraordinary Gazette No. 2310/29 issued on December 14, 2022, and Rule 107 of the Public Service Commission (PSC) Procedural Rules, the authority to appoint an Additional Secretary falls within the mandate of the Public Service Commission.

The Court further observed that, under Section 61 of the relevant rules, any person who directly or indirectly interferes with or attempts to influence or obstruct a decision of the Public Service Commission or its authorized officials commits an offence punishable by a fine not exceeding Rs. 100,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years, or both.

Accordingly, the Court held that since the petitioner had been appointed by the Public Service Commission, the Ministry Secretary’s intervention constituted an encroachment upon the Commission’s authority and an undermining of the rule of law.

The judgment further stated that such actions breached the public trust placed in a government official. Justice Obeyesekere emphasized that public officials are custodians of the trust of the people and are expected to exercise their powers responsibly and lawfully. While ministry secretaries may have supervisory authority, interference in appointments and transfers under the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission constitutes a serious violation of its constitutional powers.
 
The Supreme Court concluded that the respondent had violated the petitioner’s fundamental right to equality before the law, as guaranteed under Article 12(1) of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court further noted that the humiliation and indignity suffered by the petitioner as a result of the arbitrary actions of the Ministry Secretary could not be remedied in any meaningful way. However, it decided not to make an order for compensation or costs.