- BASL Prez says Puttalam incident points to the need to address bigger picture of the problematic law
- Association mulls action including representations on the Contempt of a Court, Tribunal, or Institution Act
The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL), representing the private and unofficial bar, has expressed concern over the Contempt of a Court, Tribunal, or Institution Act, No. 8 of 2024, and is currently deliberating on the steps to be taken regarding the matter, The Daily Morning learns.
An incident of a female attorney named P. Udayangani being remanded for alleged contempt of court by Puttalam High Court (HC) Judge Nadee Aparna Suwandurugoda following an incident on 28 March has sparked widespread discussion.
When asked by The Daily Morning as to whether the BASL would lodge a complaint with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) with regard to the incident, the BASL President, attorney Rajeev Amarasuriya said that it would take another day or two for them to decide on the next course of action. “The immediate matter was addressed, and the attorney in question was released. We are now in the process of deciding on the steps to be taken next, considering all points of view,” explained Amarasuriya.
Speaking further, he said that the BASL is “very concerned” about the Contempt of a Court, Tribunal, or Institution Act under which the said attorney was remanded. “The (Puttalam) incident is just one such incident. We must address the bigger picture, which is this Act. It is a draconian piece of legislation. We are now considering what steps should be taken on it, and what representations we should make with regard to that.”
Udayangani was remanded for alleged contempt of court by Judge Suwandurugoda following an incident on 28 March. According to the charge sheet, she had allegedly failed to bow upon entering the court, which was deemed disrespectful, and had allegedly addressed the Court without due respect during a bail hearing on 7 March while representing an accused.
The Puttalam HC granted her bail under the conditions of two sureties, a residence certificate from the Puttalam area, and an asset certificate worth Rs. 2.5 million. However, the Court was informed of the practical difficulties in meeting these bail conditions, and a request was made for an extension to furnish sureties or to allow release on personal bail, which the said HC Judge refused. The Court of Appeal subsequently ordered the release of the attorney in question, considering a writ application filed by Amarasuriya.