SOLOMAN DIAS v. SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE AND OTHERS

013-SLLR-SLLR-2002-3-SOLOMAN-DIAS-v.-SECRETARY-MINISTRY-OF-DEFENCE-AND-OTHERS.pdf


134
Sri Lanka Law Reports
[2002] 3 Sri L.R.
SOLOMAN DIAS
v.SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE AND OTHERS
SUPREME COURTFERNANDO, J.
J. A. N. DE SILVA, J. ANDWEERASURIYA, J.
SC NO. 604/2001 (FR)
JULY 01, 2002
Fundamental Rights – Travel to Vavuniya – Travel pass system – Article 14 (1)(h)of the Constitution.
The petitioner was an Attomey-at-Law employed under an organization in Colomboand performing functions relating to human rights and legal aid in the VavuniyaDistrict for displaced persons. It was necessary for him to travel to Vavuniya inconnection with his duties.
On 05. 09. 2001 the petitioner travelled to Vavuniya by bus. On the way it wasstopped at a checkpoint and upon producing his identity card he was allowedto proceed without a pass. On his return the same day, the bus was stoppedwhen the 3rd respondent, the officer-in-charge of the checkpoint severely admonishedhim for not obtaining a pass even though he said that he was a lawyer. By reasonof that delay the petitioner's bus proceeded without him; and having found othermeans of travel he returned to Colombo only at 4 am the next morning. Thatevent was the petitioner's first complaint.
His next complaint was that on 04. 10. 2001 he left for Vavuniya by train. Atthe railway station next morning, police officers instructed passengers to obtainpasses. The petitioner was refused exemption. He had to go in a queue. On hisproducing his identity card he was issued a pass for six days. He returned bybus on 08. 10; 2001. The . bus was stopped at a checkpoint and all passengerswere asked to produce their passes. The petitioner produced his Bar Associationidentity card and was allowed to continue his journey although he had not producedthe pass.
sc
Soloman Dias v. Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Others
(Fernando, J.)
135
Held:
Even assuming that the petitioner's first complaint was factually accurate,the application was filed only on 08. 11. 2001. Hence, that complaint wasout of time.
As regard the second complaint, the treatment of the petitioner on 05. 10.2001 constituted no more than minor irritations. His rights under Article14 (1) (h) were not infringed.
APPLICATION for relief for infringement of fundamental rights.
M. A. Sumanthiran with P. S. Bandaranayake, K. Prabakaran and RenukaSenanayake for petitioner.
/. Demuni de Silva, Senior State Counsel for respondents.
Cur. adv. vult.
September 05, 2002
FERNANDO, J.
This application was argued together with Vadivelu v. Offcer-irt-Charge,Sithambarapuram Refugee Camp Police Post, Vavuniya, SCApplication No. 44/2002 (FR), as both cases involved a challengeto the pass system for travel to. and from Vavuniya.
The petitoner is a citizen of Sri Lanka and an Attorney-at-Lawemployed as the Executive Secretary of the Peace, and ReconciliationCommittee, National Council of YMCA’s of Sri Lanka, in which capacityhe had functions relating to human rights education and legal aid,inter alia, at a centre in the Vavuniya District for internally displacedpersons. It was necessaiy for him to travel to Vavuniya in connectionwith his duties.
01
10
136
[2002] 3 Sri L.R.
Sri Lanka Law Reports
The petitioner pleaded that Principle 25 (3) of the Guiding Principleson Internal Displacement formulated by the UN Special Representativeon Internally Displaced Persons imposed a duty on national authoritiesto grant and facilitate persons engaged in the provision of humanitarianassistance rapid and unimpeded access to the internally displaced.He further contended that Article 12 (1) embodied the principle ofequality before the law and that Article 14 (1) (h) guaranteed freedomof movement within Sri Lanka, free from arbitrary and unjustifiedrestrictions; and that the "travel pass" system constituted an arbitraryand unreasonable restriction of those fundamental rights, and was notauthorized by or under law or regulations made under the law relatingto public security.
The petitioner’s account of the relevant facts is as follows. His firstallegation was that on 05.09.2001 when he was travelling to Vavuniyaby bus he was stopped at the Eratperiyakulam checkpoint. He wasasked to submit his identity card, which disclosed that he was anAttorney-at-Law, whereupon he was allowed to proceed on his journeywithout obtaining a pass. On his return from Vavuniya the same day,the bus was stopped at the same checkpoint, and he was asked toproduce his pass. Although he explained that he had not been requiredto obtain a pass that morning, he was asked to get out of the bus,and was then taken to the 3rd respondent, the officer-in-charge ofthe checkpoint, who interrogated him. When he said that he was alawyer the 3rd respondent retorted : “you may know the law in therest of the country but here in Vavuniya you have to follow our lawand we require you to obtain a pass”. All this resulted a delay ofover 45 minutes, and by then the. bus had left. There were no morebuses that evening, and the petitoner had to obtain lifts toMedawachchiya, and from there to Anuradhapura, from where heboarded a. bus which reached Colombo only at 4.00 a.m. the nextmorning. Even assuming that the petitioner’s account is accurate, thisapplication was filed only on 08. 11. 2001, and accordingly thisparticular complaint is out of time.
20
30
40
sc
Soloman Dias v. Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Others
(Fernando, J.)
137
The petitioner’s second complaint was that on 04. 10. 2001 heleft for Vavuniya by train. When he arrived at the railway station thenext morning, police officers instructed passengers to obtain passes,and for that purpose to join either the queue for permanent residentsof Vavuniya or the queue for visitors; his request to leave the railwaystation without obtaining a pass was refused. Upon submitting (but 50nor surrendering) his identity card, he was issued a six-day pass,and he was allowed to leave the station after his bags were checkedby the police. After finishing his work he returned by bus on 08. 10.2001. The bus was stopped at the Eratperiyakulam checkpoint, andall passengers were asked to submit their passes. The petitionerproduced his Bar Association identity card, and was allowed to continuehis journey although he had not produced the pass.
The petitioner’s third grievance was that the pass system applicableto travel between Colombo and Vavuniya, and the manner in whichit was being implemented, constituted an imminent infringement of %Articles 12 (1) and 14 (1) (/?), as in the future too persons havingto travel in a sudden emergency would be liable to arrest if theydid not have travel passes. It is unnecessary to consider this contentionas the pass system is no longer in operation. In any event, whetheran infringement is “imminent” would depend on the circumstances.
As for the petitioner’s second complaint, it is clear that the travelpass system did not in any way hinder his return journey oh
10. 2001 : he was not even asked to produce the pass issuedto him on 05. 10. 2001. As for the journey to Vavuniya on05. 10. 2001, the formalities to which- he was subject – queueing toup, obtaining a pass, and having his baggage securtiy-checked – werein the circumstances no more than minor irritations.
I, therefore, dismiss the application but without costs.
J.A. N. DE, SILVA, J. – I agree.
WEERASURIYA, J. – I agree.
Application dismissed.