037-NLR-NLR-V-69-R.-A.-JAYARATNE-Petitioner-and-Mrs.-SIRIMAVO-R.-D.-BANDARANAIKE-and-others-R.pdf
184
H. N. G. FERNANDO, S.P.J.—JayarcUne v. Bandaranaike
1906 Present: H. N. G. Fernando, S.P.J., and Alles, J.R. A. JAYARATNE, Petitioner, and Mrs. SIRIMAVO R. D.BANDARANAIKE and others, Respondents
S. C. 470j66—Application for Rule for Contempt of Court
Contempt of Court—Rule nisi—Requirement of prima facie evidence.
A rule nisi for contempt of Court will not be issued unless there is availableevidence which can lead the Court to conclude that an offence of contempt appearsto have been committed.
Ap
PLICATION for Rule nisi for Contempt of Court.
K. C. Nadaragah, with Ananda Paranavitana, for the Petitioner.
T. Thamotheram, Deputy Solicitor-General, with H. L. de Silva,Crown Counsel, as Amicus Curiae.
November 10, 1006. H. N. G. Fernando, S.P.J.—
The learned Deputy Solicitor-General appearing on notice from thisCourt has referred to the fact that for a long period, the practice of theCourt has been that a Rule Nisi for contempt of Court is only issuedif there is available evidence which can lead the Court to conclude thatan offence appears to have been committed. In the instant case, theonly material which might lead to the opinion that the first Respondentmade the statements attributed to her is the newspaper report of aspeech alleged to have been made by her. There is no affidavit beforethe Court nor any sworn testimony before the Court alleging ihat thefirst Respondent made these statements which are attributed to her. Onthis material there is no legal ground upon which to base a convictionfor the alleged offence of contempt. We are therefore in agreementwith the learned Deputy Solicitor-General that, in accordance with thepractice of the Court, a rule should not now issue against the firstRespondent on the present application. The application for rule againstthe first Respondent is therefore refused.
The question whether the publication in the newspaper itself constitutesa contempt of Court on the part of the newspaper is one which seemsto be worthy of argument and decision. Let rule issue accordinglyon the 2nd and 3rd Respondents, as prayed for in the petition.
Alles, J.—I agree.
Application against 1st respondent refused.
Rule nisi to issue on 2nd and 3rd respondents.