The Colombo High Court served the indictment on senior journalist and Sunday Times columnist J.S Tissainayagam who was charged for publishing a magazine North Eastern Monthly and refused to grant bail on him.
J.S. Tissainayagam who was indicted with committing an offence by printing, publishing, and distributing the magazine North Eastern Monthly was produced before court from prison.
The courts of democracies have constantly intervened to define the boundaries of emergency and anti terrorism laws. The courts of Sri Lanka too have when the cases before them called for their intervention, intervened to protect the rights of publication and dissemination of information. The courts have also set strict limits to the operation of public security laws into the area of publication and dissemination of information.
Deshapriya and Another Vs. Municipal Council Nuwara Eliya and Others (1995) 1 SLR 362. In issue here was the seizure of the weekly newspaper Yukthiya which were critical of the then Government. In ruling that the seizure resulted in the abridging of the freedom of speech and expression the Court pronounced particularly important principles on the nature of the right protected.
Per Fernando J
” The right to support or to criticise Governments and political parties, policies and programmes is fundamental to the democratic way of life; the freedom of speech and expression is one “which cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all civil and political institutions” and democracy requires not merely dissent be tolerated but that it be encourged.”
Ratnasara Thero Vs. Udugampola (1983) 1 SLR 461. In this instance leaflets published by an orgnisation called the Pavidi Handa ( constituted by a considerable number of the clergy, Buddhist and Christian who were opposed to the proposal to extend the life of Parliament for an additional period of 6 years.) were seized. The police stated that the leaflets had been seized from the press because it was illegal and election laws. The Court ruled that the seizure of the fundamental rights of the petitioner that is the freedom of speech and expression including publication and the 1st respondent was directed to pay Rs.10000/-as compensation and Rs.2100/- as costs to the petitioner.
Marian and another Vs. Upasena (1998) 3 SLR 177.The petitioners were arrested by the police for possession of posters containing clearly exaggerated slogans stating that Chandrika was responsible for making the May day a black day for which she should pay compensation and exhorting the public to fight against privatisation / war despite assaults by Chandrika police. According to the police the posters contained material aimed at influencing the Armed Forces from engaging in the war and also enticing the people to react violently against the President the Government and the Police. The petitioners were arrested under Emergency Regulations.
The arrest was held to be unconstitutional.
Per Fernando J -The impugned of expression and therefore no offence had been cause……
These Supreme Court judgements have proved that every Sri Lankan including Tissainayagam has a right to credit and discredit the government.
