Colombo, Sri Lanka – 30 September 2026 – In a significant ruling affirming the fundamental rights of citizens, the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka today ordered two senior police officers from the Homagama Police Station to pay a total of Rs. 1 million in compensation to Horalagamage Janaka Pradeep Kumara. The landmark judgment, delivered on September 30, 2026, found Sub Inspector Chandrapala (1st Respondent) and Inspector P.R. Maanawadu (4th Respondent), the then Officer-in-Charge of Homagama Police, guilty of violating Articles 12(1), 13(1), and 13(2) of the Constitution through illegal arrest, detention, and fabrication of evidence.
The decision, reached by a majority comprising Justices Sampath B. Abayakoon and Mahinda Samayawardhena, underscored the judiciary’s role in safeguarding personal liberty against arbitrary state action, even as Justice Menaka Wijesundera had initially dismissed the application.
The Petitioner’s Allegations: Hospital Detention and Fabricated Charges
Horalagamage Janaka Pradeep Kumara, a mason by profession, filed the Fundamental Rights application (S.C. (FR) No. 50/2024) claiming severe violations of his rights. His petition detailed that while he was receiving treatment for dengue fever at Homagama Base Hospital from December 13 to 16, 2023, he was subjected to police interrogation regarding alleged connections to an underworld group. He claimed police attempted to discharge him prematurely and kept him under surveillance, even handcuffing him to his hospital bed.
Upon his discharge on December 16, 2023, the petitioner alleged he was immediately taken into police custody, detained illegally at the Homagama Police Station until December 18, 2023, and subsequently produced before the Magistrate’s Court on a fabricated charge of possessing 5.375g of heroin. This led to his remand custody for approximately five months until he secured bail from the High Court on June 11, 2024.
Police Contradictions and Supreme Court’s Scrutiny
The 1st to 4th Respondents vehemently denied the petitioner’s claims, asserting that he was only kept under surveillance from December 14 to 15, 2023. They maintained that he was legitimately arrested on December 17, 2023, at Uduwana Junction during a routine patrol, where heroin was recovered from his possession. They claimed he was produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours of this arrest.
Justice Sampath B. Abayakoon, delivering the dissenting judgment that ultimately formed the majority decision, meticulously examined the evidence presented by both sides. Key inconsistencies in the police narrative emerged:
- Hospital Records (P9/X): Medical notes from the Homagama Base Hospital corroborated the petitioner’s version, showing a Senior House Officer’s entry on December 15, 2023, stating police needed to take the patient to prison, but it was refused due to his condition. The doctor recommended transfer to the Prison Hospital, and the patient remained for another day. This directly contradicted the police claim of mere surveillance.
- Contractor’s Affidavit (P2): An affidavit from M. Nishantha Madugalla, the petitioner’s contractor and a fellow dengue patient in the same ward, fully substantiated the petitioner’s account of hospital detention and police questioning.
- Police’s Own Documents (R1, P5): Document R1, a letter from the 4th Respondent, confirmed police surveillance at the hospital based on information about the petitioner’s alleged underworld and drug connections. P5, an initial B-report filed by the 4th Respondent in an unrelated case, identified “Janaka” as a main suspect in a plan to commit a serious crime, providing a clear motive for the police’s intense interest in the petitioner. However, despite this, the police failed to pursue this original investigation legally against the petitioner, instead opting for a separate, seemingly fabricated drug charge.
- Discrepant Arrest Narrative: The police’s arrest notes (4R-1, 4R-2, 4R-3) described a spontaneous arrest on December 17, 2023, at Uduwana Junction due to suspicious behavior, with no mention of prior surveillance or connection to the P5 case. This starkly contrasted with their own document R1 and the evidence of hospital surveillance.
- Heroin Quantity: While the police claimed recovery of 5.375g of heroin, the Government Analyst’s report (R4) revealed the pure quantity to be a mere 0.023g, raising further doubts about the intention behind the arrest and charge.
Violations of Constitutional Rights and Accountability
Justice Abayakoon concluded that the police had illegally detained the petitioner from December 16 to December 18, 2023, without following due procedure or obtaining a detention order. He found that the alleged offence of heroin possession was “a total fabrication” concocted to ensure the petitioner’s prolonged remand custody with “malicious intentions,” especially given the lack of evidence connecting him to the serious crimes mentioned in the initial B-report (P5).
Citing precedents like Muthuwahennadi Roshan Koitex and Another Vs. Sub Inspector Sanjeewa Seneviratne Police Station, Hikkaduwa & Others and Namasivayam Vs. Gunawardena, the Court emphasized that filing a false case to justify a wrongful arrest constitutes a violation of fundamental rights.
The Court held that the 1st Respondent (Sub Inspector Chandrapala) orchestrated the false narrative of the arrest, and the 4th Respondent (Inspector P.R. Maanawadu), as the Officer-in-Charge of the Homagama Police Station, knowingly facilitated this fabrication. While acknowledging the 2nd and 3rd Respondents were lower-ranked officers acting under orders, the direct responsibility for the rights violations was placed on the 1st and 4th Respondents.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court ordered the 1st and 4th Respondents each to pay Rs. 500,000/- as compensation to the petitioner from their personal funds within three months, for the suffering caused by the illegal detention and fabricated charges.
Recommendations for Future Conduct
Justice Abayakoon also emphasized that such actions severely tarnish the reputation of the Police Department. While acknowledging the vital service and sacrifices of police officers, he urged higher officials within the Department of Police and other relevant stakeholders to ensure that such infringements of fundamental rights do not occur under the guise of crime prevention.
The Registrar of the Supreme Court has been directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Inspector General of Police, the Chairman of the National Police Commission, and the Hon. Attorney General for corrective measures and necessary actions to prevent or minimize similar situations in the future.
This judgment serves as a powerful reminder of the importance of upholding constitutional rights and ensuring accountability within law enforcement agencies in Sri Lanka.
Source: Read original document