Colombo, Sri Lanka – 01 October 2026 – The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka today dismissed a fundamental rights petition filed by Ediriweera Arachchige Sisira Wickramasekera and Galahitiyawe Gedara Kamani Damayanthi, asserting that their fundamental rights under Article 12(1) of the Constitution had not been violated by police officers during an incident that tragically led to the death of a police officer. The landmark decision, delivered on October 1, 2026, by a bench comprising Justices Janak De Silva, Dr. Sobhitha Rajakaruna, and Menaka Wijesundera, also imposed Rs. 100,000 in costs on the petitioners.
Background to the Petition
The case, S.C. (FR) No. 27/2017, stemmed from events on December 13, 2016, when police officers attempted to arrest the first petitioner, Ediriweera Arachchige Sisira Wickramasekera, a construction contractor. The petitioners, husband and wife, alleged that their fundamental rights under Articles 11 (freedom from torture), 12(1) (equality before the law), 13(1) (right to personal liberty), and 13(2) (right to a fair trial) had been violated. However, the Court had granted leave to proceed only under Article 12(1) and specifically against the 2nd Respondent, Inspector of Police Nayanapriya Senatath Bandara Garunayake, OIC, Special Crime Branch, Police Station, Kandy.
According to the petitioners, Mr. Wickramasekera had business dealings involving a sum of Rs. 988,000 with a company called Convix Kandy. He claimed to have been summoned by the police regarding a complaint and had promised to pay the sum by December 25, 2016. On December 13, 2016, around 5:00 a.m., the 2nd Respondent and Sub-Inspector (SI) Kulasekara arrived at their residence to effect an arrest. The petitioners denied resisting arrest, instead claiming they were alarmed by a sudden disturbance. During the incident, SI Kulasekara, along with PC Bandara, allegedly fell down a few steps while attempting to arrest Mr. Wickramasekera, leading to SI Kulasekara’s death.
The Respondents’ Defence
The respondents, including Inspector of Police Vijitha Wijekone, Inspector of Police Nayanapriya Senatath Bandara Garunayake, Inspector of Police Gunasinghe, and the Attorney General, presented a contrasting account. They asserted that the 1st Petitioner was a wanted suspect in a Magistrate Court case for cheating and had evaded arrest despite receiving police summons under Section 109(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act. Consequently, the 2nd Respondent, acting on instructions from the Deputy Inspector General, Kandy, proceeded to the petitioners’ residence on December 13, 2016.
The police maintained that Mr. Wickramasekera aggressively resisted arrest and, aided by his wife, pushed SI Kulasekara, causing him to fall and sustain fatal injuries. The Post-mortem Report of SI Kulasekara indicated that he died on December 13, 2016, at 7:10 a.m., due to ischaemic heart disease, exacerbated by injuries to the back of his head and soft tissue injuries. The report also noted severe pre-existing coronary artery narrowing.
Supreme Court’s Finding and Dismissal
Justice Menaka Wijesundera, delivering the judgment, meticulously reviewed the evidence presented by both parties. The Court found that the 1st Petitioner was indeed a wanted suspect who had evaded lawful arrest, compelling the police party to visit his residence. Upon their arrival, the petitioners were observed to be “very aggressive.” The Court concluded that it was the petitioners’ resistance and aggressive actions that led to the tragic fall and subsequent death of SI Kulasekara while he was performing his duty.
The judgment underscored that while all citizens are equal before the law, they bear a corresponding duty to respect the law, maintain public order, and assist law enforcement authorities in the discharge of their lawful functions. The petitioners’ failure to comply with police summons, followed by their overtly hostile behaviour, directly contributed to the unfortunate events. In light of these findings, the Supreme Court determined that the actions of the respondents were neither arbitrary nor unlawful, and therefore, did not constitute a violation of the petitioners’ fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 12(1) of the Constitution.
The petition was thus dismissed, with the Supreme Court directing the petitioners to pay Rs. 100,000 in costs.
Source: Read original document