News

News

SC rules Telshan News Editor's FR violated
The Supreme Court ruled last Tuesday on the Fundamental Rights petition filed by the News Editor of Teleshan Television Network Pvt. (Ltd) (TNL) and held by a majority vote that the "Petitioner and his crew were unreasonably and without any valid reasons refused permission to 'cover' the swearing-in ceremony of former Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe at President's House on 9.04.2001 and there has been a "violation of the Petitioner's entitlement to the freedom of speech and expression, including publication (telecasting) and also a violation of his right for equality before the law and equal protection of the law.

The Petitioner M.N.D. Perera in his application cited former Secretary to the President Kusumsiri Balapatabendi, former Director of the President's Security Division Nihal Karunaratne, former Director of Information Ariya Rubasinghe and the Attorney General as respondents. The case was heard before a three-judge bench comprising Justices J. Wigneswaran, S. Thilakawardena and J. Dissanayake.

The petitioner alleged that he was to cover the swearing-in ceremony on December 9, 2001 and as on other occasions had faxed a letter to the Director of Information (3rd Respondent) giving the names and ID card numbers of the petitioner and others who were to accompany him to cover the event. However when they arrived at the entrance to the President's House on the said day, they were refused permission to enter the premises by the officers of the PSD. The Petitioner said he was compelled to borrow a video clipping from another television station for use by the TNL news station and said such discrimination had affected the standing, business and income of the Company.

Justice Wigneswaran in his judgement said that the petitioner and his crew have been singled out for discrimination for extraneous political and personnel considerations and that from people however highly placed cannot be condoned.

"If the entire media personnel were restricted for security considerations which were immediate, imminent and real, the petitioner may not have been able to show discrimination against him. But in this instance there was naked discrimination as reflected in the affidavits filed. There were no reasonable or valid grounds for refusal. I am unable to accept that the swearing-in ceremony of the Prime Minister of this country was not a public ceremony. I am unable to accept, under given circumstances, President's House cannot be considered a public place. I am unable to accept that the Petitioner in this instance was not treated unequally." Justice Wigneswaran ruled.

The Justice held that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents had, individually and or collectively violated the fundamental rights of the petitioner enshrined in Articles 12 (1), 12 (2) and 14 (a) of the Constitution. The Court also awarded the Petitioner Rs. 5,000 as compensation and Rs. 2,500 as costs with the liability to be incurred by the State and payable by the State.

However Justice Dissanayake rejected the contention of the Petitioner that there was unequal treatment in violation of Article 12 (1) discriminatory treatment in violation of Article 12 (2) and his freedom of speech and publication guaranteed under Article 14 (1) (a) have been violated by the petitioner not being among the invitees and other persons to whom the courtesy of participation at the said function has been extended.

(Please see Focus on Right)

Top

Back to News