Home Sri Lankan Cases M. Shelton Jayaweera v. Manchanayake Kalum Nishantha Manchanyake and others

Gampaha High Court
Key words
Article 154P(3)(b) (Revisionary jurisdiction of the High Court); Sec. 98 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Cases referred to
Counsel who appeared
Date of Decision
Judgement by Name of Judge/s
Noteworthy information relating to the case

Application dismissed

Other information


M. Shelton Jayaweera v. Manchanayake Kalum Nishantha Manchanyake and others

62/2019 (Revision)

Facts of the case

Issue before the MC- The residents of the area had complained to the police that a large number of people were congregating at the respondent-petitioner’s residence. These gatherings were allegedly causing a nuisance and harassment to the residents of the area. Upon the matter being taken up before the MC, the Magistrate had issued an interim order with a condition to temporarily suspend the activities of the respondent.


Issue before High Court where as follows- 


The respondent-petitioner has filed a revision application at the HC to revisit (by issuing an injunctive order) the interim order of the MC temporarily suspending/restricting the said congregation from gathering.


Findings related to FoRB

FoRB violation – Manifestation: worship, observance, practice, teaching


(1) The respondent-petitioner’s right to exercise his fundamental rights cannot be done in such a way that causes harassment/abuse/nuisance to others. (වගඋත්තරකාර පෙත්සම්කරු විසින් ඔහුගේ මූලික අයිතිවාසිකම් ක්‍රියාත්මක කල හැක්කේ එකී අයිතිවාසිකම ක්‍රියාත්මක කිරීම හේතුවෙන් අනෙක් පුද්ගලයින්ට කරදර හිරිහැරයක් නොවන ආකාරයටය.)


(2) The objective of the interim order by the Magistrate is not to obstruct the freedom of religion of the respondent-petitioner, it is to avoid a crisis situation until the case is taken up for hearing. 


(3) If any party is claiming that their fundamental rights are being violated, then the best course of action is to expedite the matter pending before the Magistrate Court (MC) and get the final order. 


(4) The respondent-petitioner has also claimed that the property in question is a private residence and not a public place. The High Court noted that this matter should also be dealt with by the MC in its examination.