O v. RUDRA RAJASINGHAM , INSPECTOR -GENERAL OF POLICE ,AND OTHERS

048-SLLR-1984-V1-TAMPO-v.-RUDRA-RAJASINGHAM-INSPECTOR-GENERAL-OF-POLICE-AND-OTHERS.pdf


CA
Muthuranee v. Thuraisingham {Tambiah, J.)
399
TAMPOE
v
RUDRA RAJASINGHAM, INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, AND
OTHERS
SUPREME COURT.
COLIN-THOME' J., RANASINGHE, J. AND RODRtGO. JSC APPLICATION No 5/84MARCH 2, 1984.
Article 126 of the Constitution-Infringement of the fundamental rights of freedom ofassociation and movement-Article 14(1)(b) and (h) and Article 16(7) and (8) of theConstitution-Meaning of processton-Regulation 12 of the Emergency (MiscellaneousProvisions and Powers) Regulations, No. 7 of 1983.
The petitioner as General Secretary of the Ceylon Mercantile Union (C.M.U.) forwardeda letter to the President inviting him and the Prime Minister to the Galle Face Green atany convenient time between 9.00 a m. and 1.00 p.m. on 15th December. 1983, tomeet worker victims of the July 1983 attacks on workplaces and explain to them whatthe Government was prepared to do for them. Among the invitees were theInspector-General of Police and the Heads of the Armed Forces.
The petitioner was informed that the procession and proposed meeting at Galle FaceGreen would not be permitted in the interests of security and because a breach of thepeace was feared.
The petitioner complains that on 15.12.1983 after an initial prevention by the Police ofentry 8t the head of 22nd Lane, which was later relaxed the members of the C.M.U.were permitted to assemble at their Headquarters at 22nd Lane. About 1,135 members <assembled at the Headquarters and the petitioner addressed them. The Police inforrqpdthe petitioner that no procession would be permitted nor the proposed meeting at GalleFace Green. The petitioner and the assembled members of his Union attempted toproceed to Galle Face Green in small batches of five separated by a few feet from oneanother but were prevented.
i
In their affidavits filed by way of defence the I.G.P. and the other PolicetJTficers deniedthat the members of the C.M.U. were at any time prevented from entering their ownHeadquarters or walking up and down along 22nd Lane. They admitted prohibiting themeeting at Galle Face Green and stated there was an attempt to go in procession to the
400
Sri Lanka Law Reports
1)984) 1 Sri L.R.
Galle Face Green by the members of the C.M.U. carrying banners and shouting slogans.Photographs were produced in support. A breach of the peace was feared. TheEmergency (Miscellaneous Provisions and Powers) Regulations, No. 7 of 1983 (Reg-12) would have been contravened if there was a public procession as no permit had£een issued and moreover the Galle Face Green itself was vested in the ArmyCommander.
Held-
A procession is the action of a body of persons going or marching along in orderlysuccession. A public procession means a procession in a public place which includesany highway. 22nd Lane is a highway and therefore a public place. The members of theunion tried to proceed starting from 22nd Lane to the Galle Face Green in groups of fiveseparated by a few feet This too was the action of a body of persons going or marchingalong in orderly succession in a highway and therefore a public procession. Thiscontravened Regulation 12 of the Emergency (Miscellaneous Provisions and Powers)Regulations, No. 7 of 1983. as no permit had been obtained.
The claim that the petitioner and members of the union were prevented fromentering or leaving 22nd Lane is not borne out by the photographs. The Policescrupulously adhered to the law in preventing a public procession.
APPLICATION under Article 126 of the Constitution for breach of fundamental rights.
Ntmal Senanayake, S. A., with Saliya Mathew, L M. Samarasinghe, A. D. Telspha,Thilak Balasuriya and A. B. Dissanayake for petitioner.
S. Aziz, D. S, G., with Upali Jayatileke, S. C„ and T. G. Gooneratne, S. C , forrespondents.
Cur.fdv. vutt.
March 13,1984.
COLIN-THOME', J.
This is an application by the petitioner under Article 126 of theConstitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka for adeclaration that the petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles12(1), (13) and 14( 1 )(b) of the Constitution had been violated and togrant the petitioner such relief in respect of the aforesaid violation.
The petitioner is the General Secretary of the Ceylon MercantileUnion which has a membership of over 30,000. On 9.12.83 heforwarded a letter to His Excellency the President inviting him as wellas the Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers "To Meet Worker Victims(of the Ceylon Mercantile Union) of July 1983 attacks on Workplaces"In the letter to the President the petitioner stated that 1,730 membersof the C.M.U. were out of work as a result of damage or destruction of
sc
a Tampoe v. Rudra Rajasingham, I.C.P. (Cohn-Thomd. J.)
401
industrial establishments in July 1983. Only'317 of tfie*affectedworkers had been provided with work. The rest were without work andhad not received any financial assistance from the Government. Theinvitees were asked to meet the members of the C.M.U. on Thursda^,15th December, 1983, at any convenient time between 9 a.m. and 1p.m. at Galle Face Green, Colombo, near the Galle Face Hotel end, joexplain to members of the C. M. U. what the Government wasprepared to do for those members of the C. M. U. who were affectedby the damage and destruction caused in July 1983.
Invitations to attend this meeting on Galle Face Green were alsoextended by the petitioner, on behalf of the union, to the Leader of theOpposition, members of the Opposition in Parliament, the NationalSecurity Council, Inspector-General of Police, heads of the ArmedServices, Commissioner-General of Essential Services and theChairman of Repia.
The I.G.P. by his letter dated 14th December, 1983, replying to theinvitation, informed the petitioner that “no meeting nor assembly ofpersons on Galle Face Green as sought by you on the 15th December,1983. will be permitted." ,1
The petitioner in his petition and affidavit (paragraph 13) has statedthat two police officers called at his residence on 14.12.83 andinformed his wife that the Union would not be allowed to go inprocession to Galle Face Green. His wife, at the insistence of thepolice officers, made a statement that the members of the C.M.U. hadno intention of going in procession to Galle Face Green.
According to the affidavit of Tilak Edirisinghe, filed by thepetitioner, on 15.12.83 he came to Kollupitiya at 6.30 a.m. to go tothe C.M.U. Headquarters which was-located about half way down22nd Lane, Kollupitiya. He was stopped by armed police at theentrance to 22nd Lane from the Galle Road and was told by the Policethat the C.M.U. office was closed and that no one will be allowed togo to the building but later C.M.U. members spoke to the police andthe police allowed him and others to go to the C.M.U. building. 4tabout 10.30 a.m. when the members of the C.M.U. and otherswanted to go to Galle Face Green they were prevented from doing soby Mr. Gaffoor and other police officers.
The petitioner also averred in his affidavit that he too as well as othermembers of the C.M.U. were prevented by the police*1Vom entering22nd Lane stating that the Union Office was* closed, but after he
402
Sri Lanka Law Repqps
[198411 SriLR.
• • * • –
informed the police that the office was open that day both he andother members were permitted to enter 22nd Lane and to go to theirfieadquarters. Learned Counsel for the petitioner stated from the Barthat the C.M.U.office generally opened at 8.30 a.m. 1,135 membersentered the headquarters and the petitioner addressed them. Thepititioner stated that shortly before that Mr. Gaffoor, Superintendentof Police (3rd respondent), informed him that the members of theC.M.U. would not be allowed to proceed to Galle Face Green.However, the members of the C.M.U. present at the headquartersunanimously decided they would attend Galle Face Green thatmorning to discuss their grievances with any persons who werepresent there on their invitation. The members decided that theywould not go in any procession and that 'they would go in smallgroups' and speak to any of the Union's invitees who might be presenton Galle Face Green.
The petitioner stated that at both ends of 22nd Lane were postedpolice officers armed with tear gas, guns and other weapons ; womenpolice officers had wicker shields and batons. The police officersprevented egress from 22nd Lane and prevented the members whowere on their way to Galle Face Green from proceeding. At this stage,the peitioner stated that ‘22nd Lane was completely blocked withmembers' . . . .“Mr. Gaffoor told me who was leading the C.M.U.members that they could not be allowed to proceed.” He told Mr.Gaffoor that most of the workers had assembled with the intention ofmeeting the invitees in a peaceful and legitimate manner at Galle FaceGreen. Mr. Gaffoor told him that he had to prevent them proceedingas he apprehended a breach of the peace not by the C.M.U. membersbut by others. Although the petitioner told Mr. Gaffoor that he and 4others were not going in any procession but intended to walk to GalleFace Green they were prevented from doing so.
The petitioner pleaded that the action of the 3rd and 4threspondents and other police officers who prevented and obstructedthe C.M.U. members from entering 22nd Lane or attending the(?,M.U. headquarters and in cordoning off 22nd Lane at both endsand preventing the members of the Union from leaving 22nd Lane wasa violation of the fundamental right of freedom of association, freedomof movement of the petitioner and members of the C.M.U.
He further jpjeaded that as General Secretary of the Union he wasentitled to act in furtherance of the objects of the Union and to meetmembers of the Union involved in the Union’s programme’ of action,
403
SCTampoe v. Rudra Rajasingham, I.G.P. (Colin-Thome, J.j
~■v 4f——■, M .
and acts resulting in obstruction to union members meeting’him and inobstructing him from implementing the decision of the members werea derogation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles14 (1) fb) and 13 of the Constitution.*
’ The petitioner also pleaded that the order of the Inspector-Generalof Police referred to by Mr. Gaffoor and the information conveyed bythe Inspector-General of Police in his letter dated 14.12.83 that hewould not be allowed to proceed to Galle Face Green and the action ofthe 3rd and 4th respondents and other police officers in preventinghim and other members from proceeding to Galle Face Green were inviolation of the fundamental rights referred to in Articles 14(1) (b) and;13 and in violation by the police officers of their duty to afford himequal protection of the law guranteed by Article 12 (1) of the(Constitution and were acts done in pursuance of executive and/oradministrative actions.
Mr. Rudra Rajasingham, Inspector-General of Police (1stRespondent), stated in his affidavit that he had received informationthat the union members who were affected by the ethnic disturbancestogether with others were planning to meet on Galle Face Green on15th December, 1983. He and his senior officers were of the view■ that a threat to security and public order was posed by this assemblingof persons for this meeting. On information received he was satisfiedthat there was every likelihood of serious breaches of the peace if themeeting was allowed. Another consideration was that neither theUnion nor the organisers of the procession sought or obtained thepermission of the police as required by law to go out in procession norwas the permission of the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, or higherauthority sought or obtained for the use of Galle Face Green fororganising a meeting or assembly.
Galle Face Green which was Government land was always in thecharge of the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, who exercised his controlthrough the Army. On 7th May, 1980. the land comprising theentirety of the Green was formally handed over by the GovernmentAgent, Colombo, with the approval of the Land Commissioner, to theArmy Commander. Plan No. 5433 was prepared by theSurveyor-General's Department depicting the entirety of Galle FaceGreen which stretches from the land immediately in front of the GalleFace Hotel to the other end of the Green, This land v»s now in thecharge of the Army. Use of the Gre§n for recreational purposes was
404Sri Lanka Law Reports[1984] 1 Sri L.R.
allowed but the public can be excludecf on atty given occasion whenthe use of the Green was required by the army or permitted by theArmy for use by others. He produced, marked 1 R 1, a certified copy of,the letter issued by the District Land Officer of the Kachcheri dated27th May, 1981, which stated that the land depicted in Plan No.5433 was handed over to the Army Commander, as from that date by#he Government Agent, Colombo, with the approval of the LandCommissioner.
It was confirmed at a security meeting which was attended by theSecretary, Ministry of Defence, the Army Commander, theInspector-General of Police and others that no permission had beensought or given for the use of Galle Face Green for the assembly of themeeting or members of the union on 15th December. 1983. At thissecurity meeting the proposed meeting on Galle Face Green wasdiscussed and in view of the grave risk to public order by permittingsuch a meeting or procession a decision was taken that all stepsshould be taken to avert this risk, including the stopping of theprocession.
Thereafter, the Inspector-General of Police issued instructions to theD I G and the Commissioner of Police, Colombo, to take steps toprevent the assembling of persons at this meeting.
Mr. Neil Weerasinghe, Commissioner of Police (2nd Respondent),stated in his affidavit that on receiving information on 12.12.83 thatthe C.M.U. was organising a meeting and/or assembly of theirmembers affected by the recent ethnic disturbances he causedinquiries to be made regarding this. In the course of investigations ittranspired that the meeting was to be. held on 15.12.83 at the GalleFace Green which was to be preceded by a procession of themembers of the C.M.U. and others from their headquarters to GalleFace Green. Information also reached him that some of theparticipants were prepared to disobey the orders of the Police andprovoke the police to retaliate by using force and court arrest. Heimmediately conveyed this information to the Inspector-General ofFJplice and considered the security aspects arising from the intendedmealing which in his view was prejudicial to the maintenance of publicorder and peace.
Some of the matters which he considered in reaching thisconclusion were, that the objective of the meeting and the processionwhich was tcTprecede it was to canvass a matter relating to the recent
405
)i
SCTampoe v. Rudra Rafasingham, l.GJ3. (Colin-Thome, J.)
_.:i
ethnic disturbances ; that both were organised by a Trade Union witha very large membership ; that there had been instances in the pastwhere similar processions and assemblies had gone out of control andcaused serious and widespread damage to property and injury toperson ; that there was hardly any time to verify and take steps toensure that the procession and meeting did not pose any risk H)Security and public order; that for the same reason the safety of themembers of the Union arid other participants could not be ensured,and that no permission had been sought by the Union, nor given by theSecretary, Ministry of Defence, or Army Commander for the use ofGalle Face Green.
1 After meeting the Inspector-General of Police he gave directions tothe O.I.C. Police Station, Colpetty, the 4th respondent, and to theSenior Superintendent of Police, the 3rd respondent, as stated .in theiraffidavits.
Mr. A. C. A. Gaffcor, Superintendent of Police (3rd Respondent),denied in his affidavit that the wife of the petitioner had stated that themembers of the Union had no intention of going in procession to GalleRace Green. He poduced a copy of her statement to InspectorParanathala, 4th respondent, marked 3 Rl. He specifically denied thattherei was prohibiion at any time on persons seeking to enter thepremises of the Uiion. The only restriction placed was on the C.M.U.procession being taken to Galle Face Green. There was no otherinterference with or prevention of, the movements of the members ofthe Union who assembled on 15th December.
! Mri Gaffoor hformed the petitioner that it would not be possible toallow the menbers of the Union who had gathered in very largenumbers to ppceed to Galle Face Green in procession. He denied thatthere was ary decision by the Union not to go in procession. On tfjecontrary it ves quite clear that the large crowd which had gatheredwere gettinr ready to go as one body and had in fact lined up for thatpurpose an! were carrying large banners and shouting slogans. Thephotograpis he produced 3R3I, 3R3L, 3R3M, 3R3N and 3R80-revealed tfot 22nd Lane at a certain stage was throughout its Ifengthand breadi filled to capacity with union members,j At a cqtain stage the members were in formation with the petitionerat the hen almost abutting Galle Road. He informed th§ petitioner andsome mmbers of the procession that a meeting or assembly on GalleFace Gpen had not been permitted1 and also that proceeding to Galle
406Sri Lanka Law Reports ^[1984] 1 Sri L R.
Face *Gr*een in this manner was a breach of the EmergencyRegulations. He informed the petitioner and. at the petitioner'srequest, some members of the Union that if the procession andtweeting were permitted there was a strong likelihood of a breach ofthe peace. The petitioner and the members of the Union accepted thissjjuation and the petitioner informed him that since he could not takethe members to Galle Face Green he wished to give them lunch andthereafter request them to leave. For this purpose some unionmembers were sent out to bring lunch.
Mr. Gaffoor stated that from about 10 a.nt. about 1800 membershad collected at the union headquarters by proceeding along 22ndLane on foot as well as in vehicles. This Lane was not cordoned offfrom any end at anytime of the day nor was 'he entry or exit of theC.M.U. members or other members of the pubic prevented. The onlyrestriction which was placed was to prevent tne large gathering ofmembers from proceeding to Galle Face Green in a procession.
Inspector J. Paranathala stated in his affidavit that with a view topreventing a procession to Galle Face Green fe deployed policesquads at both ends of 22nd Lane. Instructions were given to thesesquads that on no account was any procession of tie union membersor others to be allowed to proceed from the heacquarters to GalleFace Green. Strict instructions were given that the novement of themembers of the public or of the Union into and o»t of 22nd Laneotherwise than in procession was not to be inttrfered with orobstructed in any manner. He was present at the seine throughoutthat day and he was satisfied that those instructions vere compliedwith by his officers.
The affidavit of witness W. K. Wimalaratne, PS 7033,was filed. Hewas on duty at 22nd Lane on the 15th from 6.45 am. He sawmembers of the Union assembling at their headquarter;. At about10.30 a.m. he heard the petitioner address those assenbled in thebudding. Thereafter the petitioner went up to the 3rd resiondent onGafle Road and, after speaking to the 3rd respondent, retuned to theheadquarters and addressed the members of the Union.
In the course of his address the petitioner told the C.M.U. nembers"Now that we are getting ready to go to Galle Face we hve beenasked to bear»the police assaults without running and ftl downwherever we are".
SCT'ampoe v fiBbra Rajasingham, I.G.P. (Cohn-Thome, J.)407
After addressing the large crowd present at this time the petitionerstarted to lead the large crowd (about 1,500-2,000 present)*towards Galle Road. The petitioner again spoke to the 3rd respondentand thereafter he requested the 3rd respondent to speak to themembers. There was cordiality between the members of the Unionand the police force. He heard the petitioner tell the crowd thatpolicemen too have their grievances and that they should fight for theirrights. The petitioner further stated that the members will remain tillaround 1 p.m. and disperse after lunch. Thereafter, some personsbrought lunch packets for the members and the petitioner addressedthe crowd once more and concluded by thanking the police that thepolice had discharged their duties and hence there was no enmitybetween the Union and the police.
The petitioner in his counter-affidavit averred that no organised orpublic meeting was planned and no procession was intended by themembers of the C M. U. His wife had informed the 4th respondent thatno meetings, processions or picketing was intended. He annexed heraffidavit marked ‘VI'
He repeated his earlier allegations of police obstruction andsubmitted that some of the photographs produced by the 3rdrespondent proved this contention. He repeated that he informed the3rd respondent of the decision of the union members to proceed to
Galle, Face Green in small groups of five well separated from other
groups. He drew attention to photograph 3R3E in support of this.
«
He stated that the photograph 3R3L showed him addressing theunion members after 1.00 p.m, stating that they had now to abandontheir .plan to meet the invitees and should jeturn to headquarters forlunch.
He stated that P. S. Wimalaratne omitted to mention in his affidavitthat part of his speech to the members of the Union that they willmove in groups of five separated at intervals.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner informed Court that he was notpressing the submission that the petitioher's fundamental rights underArticles 12(1) and 13 of the Constitution were violated. Hq,confinedthis plea only to Article 14{ 1 )(h) of the Constitution qnd not to Article14(1)(b). Although Article 14(1)(h) is not specifically stated in thepetition arid affidavit in paragraph 26 of.the petitioner's affidavit he
408
Sri Lanka Law Reports
[1984J 1 Sri LR.
does refer to violation of the fundamental right of freedom ofmovement "of mine and the other members of the Ceylon MercantileUnion". The compass of the petitioner's original application hastherefore now been considerably confined within narrow bounds.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the police officersviolated the fundamental right of freedom of movement under Article14{ 1 )(h) of the petitioner and other members of the Union when theyobstructed their entry into and exit from 22nd Lane. He furthersubmitted that there was no procession on this day. Lawful actionagainst a procession could be taken only after a procession is formed.He submitted that the photograph X4 filed by the petitioner revealedthat the members of the Union were in groups of five along 22nd Laneseparated by a few feet. They intended to proceed to Galle Face Greenin this manner but were prevented from doing so. This was not apublic procession. He also submitted that the photographs filed by the3rd respondent completely nullified the averments of Mr. Gaffoor thatat a certain stage the members of the C.M.U. were in formation withthe petitioner at the helm almost abutting Galle Road.
Article 14(1 j(h) of the Constitution reads 'Every citizen is entitled tothe freedom of movement and of choosing his residence within SriLanka'
However, under Article 15(7):
'The exercise and operation of all the fundamental rights declaredand recognised by Articles 12, 13(1), 13(2) and 14 shall be subjectto such restrictions as may be prescribed by law in the interests ofnational security, public order etc. or for the purpose of securingdue recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others,or of meeting the just requirements of the general welfare gf ademocratic society. For the purposes of this paragraph-'law'includes regulations made under the law for the time being relatingto public security*.
jiis has to be read with Article 15(8);
"The exercise and operation of the fundamental rights declaredand recognised by Articles 12 (1), 13 and 14 shall, in theirapplication to the members of the Armed Forces, Police Force andother forces charged with the maintenance of public order, besubject to suoh restrictions as may be prescribed by law in theinterests of the proper discharge of their duties, and themaintenance of discipline among them."
SCTampoev. RudraRajasingham, I.G.P. (Colin-Thome. J.)409
=*;■■—
In 1983, following grave acts of violence and lawlessness in various
parts of the country a state of emergency was declared throughout
the country. .Regulations were made by the President under section 6
of the Public Security Ordinance (Chapter 40) cited as the Emergency
(Miscellaneous Provisions and Powers) Regulations, No. 7 of 1983.
On the 15th December, 1983, the Regulations published in Gazette
Extraordinary No. 271/21, on Friday, November 18, 1983, were still
in force.
Regulation 12 is as follows
'12.(1) The President may. by order, prohibit the holding of publicprocessions or public meetings, or of such public processionsor meetings as may be specified in that order in any area in SriLanka for such period as may be so specified, subject to such' exemptions as may be made by that order or by any subsequentorder made under this regulation.
The President may give directions prohibiting the holding of anyprocession or meeting in any area in Sri Lanka the holding ofwhich would be, in the opinion of the President, likely to cause adisturbance of public order or to promote disaffection. ’
Any police officer may take such steps, and use such force, asmay be reasonably necessary for securing compliance with anyorder or directions made or given under this regulation."
The Order made by the President under Regulation 12 andpublished in Gazette Extraordinary No. 271/27 on Friday, November18. 1983, reads :
“Order
This Order may be cited as the Emergency (Public Processions)
Order.
The holding of any public procession whatsoever in any part of. Sri Lanka is hereby prohibited during the continuance in force qf
this Order:
Provided, however, that the preceding provisions of thisparagraph shall not prevent the holding of any procession in the*case of which the following conditions are satisfied(a) that the officer-in-charge of the police station in the area ipwhich the procession is to commence or any police officerof a rank not below that of Assistant Superinter^ent has inhis absolute discretion granted a permit authorising theprocession ;
410. Sri banka Law Reports m[1984} 1 Sri L.R.
' -b) that the total number of persons taking part in theprocession does not exceed such number as may bespecified by the said officer in the permit so granted ; and(c) that the procession commences and disperses within suchperiods as may be specified in the permit authorising suchprocession."
The words "public procession" in Regulation 12 have not beendefined. According to the Shorter Oxford Dictionary a "procession" isthe "action of a body of persons going or marching along in orderlysuccession." A "public procession" therefore means a procession in apublic placO, which includes any highway. 22nd Lane is a highway andtherefore a public place. Did the members of the C.M.U. at any stagego in procession along this highway ? The petitioner denies this. Theaffidavits of Mr. Gaffoor and P.S. Wimalaratne aver that at a certainstage a vast concourse of members of the Union emanated from theirheadquarters and proceeded along 22nd Lane carrying banners andshouting slogans with the petitioner at the helm. They proceededalong 22nd Lane to the point where it abutted Galle Road. There wasevery indication that this large body of persons which at one stagealmost occupied the whole of 22nd Lane intended to march to GalleFace Green This is not only supported by photographs 3R3L and3R3M but also there is the admission by the petitioner in paragraph 21of his affidavit “Mr. Gaffoor told me who was leading the CeylonMercantile Union members that they could not be allowed toproceed."
After being thwarted in their objective the petitioner adopted a
change of tactics in order to reach Galle Face Green The members ofthe Union tried to proceed to the Green in groups of five separated bya few feet. In my view this too was the "action of a body of personsgoing or marching along in orderly succession". It was still a "publicprocession" and contravened the Order made by the President underRegulation 12 as the petitioner and/or the C.M.U. had not obtained ai permit authorising the procession. I hold, therefore, that in thecircumstances of this case Mr. Gaffoor and the police officers vyerescrupulously adhering to the law by preventing such a publicprocession.
Secondly, did the police officers prevent the petitioner andmembers ®f the Union from entering or leaving 22nd Lane as claimedby the petitioner ?*The 3rd and 4th Respondents deny that there wasany such obstruction. In fac? the 4th Respondent has averred- that
sc
Tampoe v, fydra IJgasingtiem. I.&P. .(CQlin-Jfcornd. J)
* . *
411
strict instructions were given to the police squad that the movement otthe members of the public or of the Union into and out of 22nd Laneotherwise than in procession was not to be interfered with orobstructed in any manner and these instructions were complied withby the police officers,
It is common ground that%a large number of union members wentdown 22nd Lane and had a meeting in their headquarters which wasaddressed by the petitioner. The photographs show large numbers ofthem freely moving up this lane. The photographs of the petitioner alsoreveal that he was free to move up and down the lane. Thephotographs 3R3A and 3R3B show him talking to Mr. Gaffoor on thepavement alongside Galle Road without any constraint.
For the reasons stated I hold that the petitioner's freedom ofmovement was not violated on 15th December, 1983, by any policeofficer. The application of the petitioner is dismissed. I make no orderas to costs.
RANASINGHE, J. – I agree.
RODRIGO, J. – I agree.
Application dismissed.