Supreme court granted permission today (4) to hear the fundamental rights petition filed to nullify the decision taken by then-president Maithripala Sirisena’s decision under presidential pardon to exonerate Bodubala sena priest Galaboda Ethhe Ganasara who was sentenced on charges of contempt of court. Permission has been given. (Sri Lanka Latest News)
The Supreme Court also ordered the President’s Secretary to take steps to submit the file related to granting amnesty to Gnanasara Thero to the court within six weeks from today.
This order was issued by the three-member Supreme Court bench consisting of S. Thuraiiraja, Yasanta Kodagoda and Arjuna Obeysekera.
These petitions were submitted by Sandhya Ekneligoda, the wife of the missing journalist Mr Prageeth Ekneligoda, and the Center for Alternative Policy, challenging the decision to grant amnesty to Galagodatte Gnanasara, who was sentenced to 06 years of hard labour for the charge of contempt of court.
Attorney at law Hastika Devendra, who appeared for the petitioner Mrs. Sandhya Eknaligoda, stated before the court that Gananasara Thero was convicted of contempt of court and the Supreme Court upheld the prison sentence given by the Court of Appeal.
After that, Member of Parliament Mr Duminda Dissanayake made a statement to the media and mentioned that there is a possibility of granting general amnesty to Gnanasara Thero and releasing them.
Later, the lawyer said that his client sent letters to the then Minister of Justice Talatha Athukorala and the Attorney General inquiring about this.
The lawyer stated that Minister Talatha Athukorala had informed the petitioner that she did not know anything about the process of pardoning Gnanasara Thero, and said that through this statement, it appears that proper legal steps have not been followed in the process of pardoning Gnanasara Thero.
Lawyer Tishya Veragoda, who appeared for Galagoda Atte Gnanasara Thero, stated before the court that the Malwathu and Asgiri factions had also requested to grant amnesty to one of their clients.
The lawyer said that the President has the discretionary power to grant amnesty to the guilty and in this case, the President has exercised that power properly.
At that time, judges S. Thurairaja and Yasanta Kodagoda raised the question of whether the power of the President to grant amnesty cannot be examined by the court.
The lawyer who replied said that the court has the ability to examine the matter.
According to Article 34 of the Constitution, the president has the power to grant amnesty to those who are found guilty by the court.
The petitioner party has stated that the President has not consulted the opinion of the Chief Justice before releasing a person who is serving a prison sentence for contempt of court and that is not related to the process of granting amnesty.
The President’s counsel further said that the then Minister of Buddha Sasana had requested to grant amnesty to Gnanasara Thero and accordingly the President proceeded to grant the relevant amnesty.
Here, Mr. Justice Thuraiiraja raised a question and asked on what basis Gnanasara Thero was chosen to grant pardon.
The President’s counsel replied that Minister of Buddha Sasana requested to grant amnesty to the accused thera and he stated that the President proceeded to grant the relevant amnesty as there was a justifiable basis for that request.
Lawyer Mr. Viran Koraya also presented facts on behalf of the Alternative Policy Centre, which submitted a petition.
Mr. Nerin Pulle, the Additional Solicitor General, who appeared before the court, stated that the granting of amnesty is a unique power vested in the President under Article 34 of the Constitution.
The Additional Solicitor General, who mentioned that the limits of the powers assigned to the legislature, the executive and the judiciary have been well defined in the Constitution, said that the Supreme Court has to act subject to those limits when interpreting the law.
The three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, which considered the facts presented by all the parties, then granted permission for the hearing of the petition.
Accordingly, if there are any objections related to the case, the Supreme Court ordered the respondents to file them on December 13th and also ordered that the hearing of the petition be held on May 6th next year.