Colombo, Sri Lanka – 30 September 2026 – The Sri Lankan Court of Appeal today dismissed a petition filed by the Committee for Protecting Rights of Prisoners (Guarantee) Ltd. and others, challenging the continuous and routine presence of Special Task Force (STF) personnel within prison premises, particularly at Boossa Prison. The court, comprising Justices Amal Ranaraja and Dr. Sumudu Premachandra, refused to grant writs of Certiorari, Mandamus, and Prohibition, emphasizing the critical need for prison security in the wake of recent deadly riots and the STF’s lawful mandate.
Petitioners’ Challenge to STF Operations
The application, filed as CA (WRIT) Case No.190/26, named the Minister of Justice and National Integration, the Commissioner General of Prisons, the Minister of Public Security and Parliamentary Affairs, the Inspector General of Police, and the Attorney General, among others, as respondents. The petitioners contended that STF officers were unlawfully involved in daily management functions, including routine physical searches of prisoners, visitors, and attorneys-at-law. They argued that this non-temporary presence intimidated individuals, obstructed legal representatives, and represented an abdication of duty by prison authorities, making the STF’s operational role ultra vires of the Prisons Ordinance (Sections 6(2), 10(2), 12, 13, and 33).
To substantiate their claims, the petitioners submitted supporting affidavits outlining grievances and formal letters of demand sent to the respondents seeking the STF’s removal from Boossa Prison, which reportedly received no response. A diagram detailing STF operational locations within Boossa Prison was also provided.
The petitioners sought various writs, including:
- A Writ of Certiorari to quash any decision permitting continuous STF presence and routine functions.
- Writs of Mandamus to direct respondents to fulfill their duties under the Prisons Ordinance, cease STF interference, and prevent delegation of duties to STF personnel.
- A Writ of Prohibition to restrain STF personnel from carrying out routine functions.
- An interim order to halt the STF’s continued presence and routine deployment pending the application’s final determination.
Court’s Grounds for Dismissal
Delivering the order, Justice Dr. Sumudu Premachandra outlined several key reasons for the court’s decision to dismiss the application without costs:
Vague Prayers and Absence of Impugned Decision
The court noted that the petitioners sought to quash “any decision and/or order” without specifically identifying the impugned decision. Citing the precedent set in Amarasinghe and Others Vs. Central Environmental Authority and Others [2002] 3 SLR 467, Justice Premachandra stated that relief sought must be specific, and the absence of a produced decision for examination rendered the prayer vague and “bad in law.”
Legitimacy of STF Operations and Public Security Concerns
The judgment clarified that the STF, formed in 1983 as a specialized tactical unit, functions under the overarching Police Ordinance No. 16 of 1865, not a separate legislative act. It operates under the Inspector General of Police and the Ministry of Public Security. The court rejected the contention that prison officers had abdicated their duties, stating that deploying STF for “special security for special prison inmates” was not “sinister.”
Crucially, the court highlighted a wave of deadly prison riots in July and August 2026, including incidents at Negombo, Mahara, New Magazine, and Kuruwita Prisons, which resulted in significant casualties and unrest. These incidents, driven by overcrowding and gang clashes, “demanded high security for every prison.” In this context, the court found that deploying STF alongside prison officers for security purposes could not be deemed an act of ultra vires (beyond power), referencing Section 77(5) of the Prisons Ordinance and Section 56 of the Police Ordinance.
No Enforceable Legal Right for Mandamus and Judicial Deference to Policy
The court reaffirmed that a prerequisite for a Writ of Mandamus is the existence of an enforceable legal right based on a public duty. Given that the STF’s deployment was not found to be ultra vires, the petitioners lacked such a right. Furthermore, the judgment noted that courts typically do not interfere with government policy decisions “unless it is shown to be contrary to law or inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution,” citing Sidheswar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd v Union of India (2005) 3 SCC 369.
Prior Precedent and Discretionary Nature of Writs
The court also considered a prior identical matter, CA/WRT/712/2025, Jayasekara Withanage Ruwan Chamara, (Alias Midigama Ruwan) vs The Assitant Superintendent of Prison, Boossa Prison, and others, which was decided on 04 September 2025. In that case, formal notices were refused, with Justice N. R. Abeysuriya, PC, J. (P/CA) stating it would “lead to an absurdity” to prevent police officers from conducting investigations inside a prison when there was reasonable suspicion of an offence. The court reiterated that the issuance of writs is subject to judicial discretion, not granted as a matter of course or right.
Based on these reasons, the Court of Appeal concluded that the application lacked substance, thereby refusing formal notices on the respondents and dismissing the petition.
Source: Read original document