Sri Lanka's former police chief remanded to judicial custody
Colombo, Aug 20 (PTI) Deshabandu Tennakoon, Sri Lanka's former chief of police, was on Thursday remanded to judicial custody till August 27, a second time in remand for him in five months.
Tennakoon was arrested on Wednesday for his alleged role in cracking down the 2022 people's uprising termed the Aragalaya.
He was produced in the Colombo Fort magistrate's court earlier in the morning.
He tried to prevent arrest through court intervention but his anticipatory bail application was rejected by the court on Tuesday.
Just two weeks ago, Tennakoon was formally sacked from the post of the inspector general through a parliamentary panel which investigated the charges of misconduct against him.
Tennakoon, the then senior deputy inspector general in charge of the capital Colombo, was named a suspect in the case on the then government's crackdown of the peaceful protestors.
Aragalaya led to the resignation of the then president Gotabaya Rajapaksa bowing to the demand that he resign over his inability to tackle the economic crisis.
Violence erupted in the city on May 9, 2022 as the then government supporters assaulted the protesters. Tennakoon was accused of inaction to prevent the clashes.
In March this year, after evading court on a separate case, Tennakoon was arrested and spent two weeks in remand custody before being released on bail.
He was appointed the police chief in November 2023 despite the highest court sanctioning him for torture of a suspect under police custody.
In July 2024, the Supreme Court suspended him from functioning as the police chief which led to his sacking through the parliamentary inquiry against him. PTI CORR NPK NPK
(This story has not been edited by News18 staff and is published from a syndicated news agency feed - PTI) view comments
First Published:
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Loading comments...
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
a minute ago
- Hindustan Times
Day before SIR hearing, EC files compliance report before SC
New Delhi: The Election Commission of India (ECI) has filed a compliance report before the Supreme Court ahead of Friday's hearing on the ongoing revision of Bihar's electoral rolls, which has drawn scrutiny after large-scale deletions. The Supreme Court building in New Delhi. (HT Photo) A person aware of the development told Hindustan Times that the Commission has submitted a 'three-to-four page compliance report which says that all the suggestions made by the Supreme Court on August 14 have been complied with promptly.' The source added that the ECI has also placed on record a status report, giving details of the directions issued to the District Electoral Officers (DEOs) as well as the reports received back from them. 'The Commission had asked all 38 DEOs to furnish the status of compliance with the Court's orders, and these have now been compiled and submitted,' the person said. CEC Gyanesh Kumar, at a press conference on Sunday had said that the Commission has complied with SC's directives in '56 hours.' The Court, on August 14, had recorded the ECI's consent to adopt interim measures designed to improve transparency in the electoral roll revision. These measures require the online publication of the names of nearly sixty-five lakh voters who appeared in the 2025 rolls but are missing from the draft rolls. Each district's website is to host booth-wise data, searchable by EPIC number, along with reasons for exclusion. The Bench had set a deadline of August 19 for completing the exercise. To ensure that the exercise is not limited to digital publication, the Bench also directed wide publicity. 'The lists must be publicised in vernacular newspapers with wide circulation and broadcast on television and radio,' the Court noted, adding that district-level officials should also use their social media platforms to alert voters. Further, the booth-level officers were instructed to display the excluded-voter lists at Block Development Offices or Panchayat offices, so that citizens in rural areas could physically inspect them. The Bench also required that the notices should expressly inform citizens that they may file claims for inclusion in the rolls, accompanied by a copy of their Aadhaar card. A consolidated state-level list is also to be made available on the website of the Chief Electoral Officer of Bihar. 'The idea is to ensure that no eligible voter is left without recourse,' the Bench had observed while fixing the matter for monitoring on August 22. Friday's hearing, advanced to 12 pm from the initially scheduled 2 pm, is expected to be brief as Justice Bagchi, who leads the Bench, has to preside over a special bench at 3 pm. 'The court might give further directions after taking a note of the report,' the person cited earlier said.
Hindustan Times
34 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Can't let Governors sit on bills indefinitely: SC
New Delhi: Permitting governors to sit indefinitely on bills passed by state legislatures may render the democratic process and the will of the people 'defunct', the Supreme Court observed on Thursday, as it continued hearing the presidential reference on whether the courts can prescribe timelines for gubernatorial and presidential assent. The Supreme Court building in New Delhi. (HT Photo) A constitution bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai and justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar is examining President Droupadi Murmu's Article 143 reference made in May. The reference seeks clarity on the top court's April 8 ruling which, for the first time, laid down timelines for governors and the president to decide on state bills pending before them. 'If a particular function is entrusted to the governor and for years he withholds it, will that also be beyond the scope of judicial review of this court? When this court has set aside constitutional amendments taking away judicial review as violating the basic structure, can we now say that however high a constitutional authority may be, courts will still be powerless if it does not act?' the bench asked. The bench also pressed the Centre to explain what remedy exists when governors indefinitely delay action. 'Under Article 200, if we hold that the governor has unlimited power to withhold a bill for time immemorial, what is the safeguard for a duly elected legislature? Suppose a legislature elected by a two-thirds majority passes a bill unanimously, and the governor simply sits on it, it would make the legislature totally defunct,' it further remarked. Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, countered that while the court's concern may be justified, it cannot assume jurisdiction to set time limits where the Constitution is silent. 'A justification can never confer jurisdiction. Every problem in this country may not have a solution in the Supreme Court. Some problems must find solutions within the system,' he said. According to Mehta, the solution was in the 'political process, not judicial directions'. He argued that chief ministers could engage directly with governors, prime ministers, or even the President to resolve such impasses. 'Such issues have been arising for decades but have always been resolved through political statesmanship and maturity. Why cannot we trust other constitutional functionaries? The remedy ultimately will lie with Parliament by way of an amendment, not by judicial legislation,' Mehta submitted. At this, the bench interjected: 'When there is no outer limit, can a constitutional interpretation be left to a vacuum? Though a time limit may not be prescribed, there must be some way the process works. There cannot be a situation where not acting on a bill itself is a full stop… nothing further.' The bench also questioned whether judicial review could be completely excluded. The court observed: 'The decision may not be justiciable, but the decision-making process certainly falls within the ambit of judicial review.' Mehta, however, warned that opening the door to scrutiny would lead to 'multilevel challenges' at every stage of a governor's or president's decision under Articles 200 and 201. 'Our problem is every step before the final decision will also be challenged because they can also constitute a 'decision',' he argued. He cited judicial precedents where the court held that fixed timelines for criminal trials could not be judicially prescribed, to reinforce his submission that timelines in constitutional processes too cannot be judicially imposed. But the bench pressed further, citing petitions already filed by Kerala, Punjab, and West Bengal. 'Suppose a decision is not taken for four years. What happens to the democratic set-up of the government? What happens to the will of the two-thirds majority of the legislature?' it asked. Mehta responded with an analogy: 'Take the example of a trial pending for 10 years. Can the President step in and declare that the punishment is deemed to have been undergone because the judiciary has delayed? Separation of powers means some issues are non-justiciable.' The court, however, made it clear that it was not dealing with a hypothetical concern. 'We are having petitions from at least four states,' the court underlined. The presidential reference, prompted by the court's April judgment in the Tamil Nadu case, asks whether the judiciary can impose timelines on constitutional authorities like governors and the president when the Constitution itself is silent. In that ruling, a two-judge bench also fixed a three-month deadline for the president to decide on bills referred by a governor, and one month for a governor to act on re-enacted bills. It had even invoked Article 142 to deem 10 Tamil Nadu bills as assented to, after holding that the governor's prolonged inaction was 'illegal'. Mehta criticised the notion of deemed assent. 'Deemed assent would mean your lordships substituted yourselves for the governor and declared the assent deemed to have been granted. Article 142 cannot be used to amend the Constitution,' he argued. The bench, however, maintained that courts cannot abdicate their role as custodians of the Constitution. 'Every wrong has to have a remedy. Whether the hands of the constitutional court will be tied when a constitutional functionary refuses to discharge their function without any valid reason? Whether the court will say we are powerless?' the bench asked. Arguments on the reference will continue on August 26.
Indian Express
34 minutes ago
- Indian Express
SC decision on pleas seeking stay on stray dog order likely today
The Supreme Court is likely to pronounce its decision on pleas seeking stay of its August 11 order directing relocation of stray dogs to dedicated shelters on Friday. A three-judge bench presided by Justice Vikram Nath had on August 14 reserved its interim order on the issue of managing the stray dog population in the National Capital Region (NCR). The top court's intervention came just days after another bench initiated suo motu proceedings and ordered relocation of strays from the streets to dedicated shelters. Reserving its decision, the bench, headed by Justice Nath, and comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria, directed all intervenors to file affidavits with supporting evidence. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the government had argued: 'Sterilisation does not stop rabies. Even if you immunise that does not stop mutilation of children.' 'There is a vocal minority view against a silent majority view,' he added. Mehta said that while the Rules exist, they are inadequate and the top court must intervene to address the issue. The 2023 Animal Birth Control Rules deal with the management of the stray dog and cat population. The rules reclassified them as 'community animals', included provisions for community animal feeding and specified that stray dogs cannot be displaced from their regular place of habitation. The apex court's August 11 order had specifically directed that the stray dogs should not be brought back to their habitat after sterilisation. The suo motu case initiated by a bench headed by Justice JB Pardiwala was subsequently re-assigned by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai to the three-judge bench headed by Justice Nath. It was brought to the notice of the court that another bench had in a matter relating to strays called for a compassionate approach.
