Inspector General of Police (IGP) Chandana Wickremaratne appeared before the Supreme Court to explain why he failed to comply with an order made by the Court to formulate guidelines for police officers to prevent encounter deaths while suspects are in police custody.
In a judgment dated February 3, 2023, the Supreme Court had ordered the IGP to formulate, issue, and implement guidelines for the police, elaborating on the steps that should be taken by each officer to avoid “encounter deaths.” The IGP had been ordered to submit this report to court on March 24.
Additional Solicitor General Nerin Pulle, appearing for the IGP, informed the court that the Police Department has formulated this guideline to prevent encounter deaths in the future.
The Supreme Court’s three-judge bench was comprised of Justices Buwaneka Aluwihare, Gamini Amarasekara, and Arjuna Obeysekara.
In a judgment dated February 3, 2023, the Supreme Court had ordered the IGP to formulate a guideline and report to court on March 24. However, when the matter was called before the Supreme Court, the Police Department failed to submit a report as per the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment. Accordingly, the Supreme Court ordered the IGP to appear in court to explain why he failed to comply with the court order.
In this case, Mohammed Rashid Fathima Sharmila, on behalf of her deceased husband, Mohammed Nizar Mohammed Irfan, had filed a Fundamental Rights petition against law enforcement authorities. The petitioner alleged that her deceased husband was apprehended in 2008 by four policemen attached to Slave Island Police along with three other police officers and was shot dead in the morning by the third responding police officer. It is alleged by the 3rd Respondent that the shot was fired when exercising his right of private defense against an alleged violent attempt by the deceased to escape the charge of the police officers accompanying him on a search for concealed weapons.
On February 3, 2023, the Supreme Court ordered the state to pay Rs. 250, 000 as compensation to the petitioner. In addition, she ordered three policemen to pay Rs. 25,000 each to the petitioner. Further, the court ordered the 4th and 5th respondents to pay Rs. 200,000 each to the petitioner, and all payments by the respondents are to be made personally.
