brand logo

Towards a people-friendly police service: IGP must ensure all police personnel adequately trained and supervised: SC

11 May 2021

  • Cops conducting probes, trial proceedings, regulating traffic, working under suboptimal conditions: Justice Thurairaja PC

By Ruwan Laknath Jayakody   The Inspector General of Police (IGP) in particular must take steps to adequately train and supervise all police personnel to adhere to the laws practiced, to show professionalism in policing, and to provide a people-friendly police service to the public, the Supreme Court (SC) explained. The SC also noted that in the context of the services rendered by police officers to protect the people including in connection with investigations, trial proceedings, and even regulating motor traffic, police officers do not always work under optimal conditions. Thus, the SC noted that it is imperative that police officers are given the necessary training through programmes aimed at capacity building, and that the general public also be made aware of the training the officers undertake so as to restore and retain the faith of the public in the police force. The SC made these points in the case of Hondamuni Chandima Samanmalee de Zoysa Siriwardena and Another vs. Inspector Malaweera, Police Station, Ambalangoda, and Others (SC FR Application 242/2010), where the judgement was penned by President’s Counsel (PC) and Justice Sithambarampillai Thurairaja, who was joined by Justice Lakshman Tikiri Bandara Dehidenya with Justice Buwaneka P. Aluwihare PC writing a concurring opinion. In the said case, references were made to the alleged violations of fundamental rights under Articles 11 (freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, or punishment) and 12(1) (right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law) of the Constitution. In W.M.K. De Silva vs. Chairman, Ceylon Fertiliser Corporation, Justice Dr. Anthony Ranjit Bevis Amerasinghe stated that: “Article 11 prohibits any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is, without lawful sanction in accordance with a procedure established by law, intentionally inflicted on a person by a public official acting in the discharge of his/her executive or administrative duties or under the colour of office.” Justice Thurairaja PC noted that the trauma caused in incidents of this nature is a form of mental suffering inflicted intentionally by public officials in the discharge of his/her duties, and that it is imperative therefore that such action should be considered to be serious in nature and accordingly condemned. In Adhikary and Another vs. Amarasinghe and Others, Justice (as she was then) Dr. Shirani Anshumala Bandaranayake opined that: “When police officers, who are guardians of the law and whose duties include 'to prevent all offences, preserve peace, and to apprehend disorderly characters', behave in an outrageous manner without paying heed to safeguarding and protecting the rights of the people, a dismal picture of such officers held in such high esteem emerges.” The “Police (Appearance of Attorneys-at-Law [AALs] at Police Stations) Rules, 2012” issued by the IGP under Section 55 of the Police Ordinance to deal with the appearance of any AAL at a police station (Extraordinary Gazette Notification bearing number 1758/36, dated 18 May 2012) lays down certain guidelines to be followed in this regard. Clause 3 of the said Rules reads thus: “(1) Every AAL, who enters the precincts of a police station, in his/her capacity of an AAL for the purpose of representing and watching the interests of a person who is the client of such AAL, shall be treated cordially and courteously and given a fair and patient hearing by the police officers attached to such police station, whatever their rank. (2) Every police officer attached to a police station shall not at any time during which he/she is dealing with an AAL present in such police station for the purpose of representing and watching the interests of a person who is his/her client, use physical force on the person of such AAL or resort to the use of abusive language or any other form of intimidatory conduct." Clause 10 of the said Rules holds that: “Any officer of the police force who violates these Rules shall be – (i) punishable under the provisions of Section 55 of the Police Ordinance; and (ii) be subjected to a disciplinary inquiry conducted by the Department of Police." Concerning the issue, Thurairaja PC added further that: "It is indeed for the sake of upholding the integrity of the entire body of police officers that we must not condone incidents of misconduct so that the reputation of the police force may not be tarnished by the misdemeanours of a few. It would be a great injustice if the actions of a few were to discredit the valuable services of the dedicated and disciplined officials dutifully ensuring the safety and peace of all citizens. The majority of the officers are acting in the pursuit of the betterment of the people and the country." Therefore, Justice Thurairaja PC emphasised: “It is imperative that the society at large, particularly members acting in the benefit of the protection of the country, respect the judicial system of the country, of which AALs play a fundamental role. When an AAL acts in a reasonable, non-provocative, and rational manner, unruly behaviour by a police officer directed towards him/her is an unacceptable response. Thus, in order for those of the legal profession to safeguard the dignity of their office, police officers and other members bearing public office must be of assistance, exercising their duties by respecting the codes of ethics as well as the unwritten rules of human decency.” However, the SC pointed out that the violation of rules, laws, and standards by the Police have been noticed by the authorities for a considerable period of time now, and that even though such violations have been informed to both the Police Department and the Government, in certain incidents unfortunately, no prompt and adequate measures are taken to control or minimise the violations of errant officers, while in many cases, some of these violations are recurring. This directs towards the conclusion that the relevant authorities in the Police Department are not taking adequate preventive measures, the SC added. As explained by Justice Thurairaja PC, in order to prevent such incidents from recurring and to protect the necessary parties, it is insufficient to only take action in isolated events against specified officers, as not only does blaming officers following violations not act as a deterrent to unfavourable practices, it also does not build a sustainable method of maintaining proper conduct among the officers. Towards this end, Justice Thurairaja PC highlighted the need for awareness and raising awareness regarding the standards governing conduct. “There must be awareness raised among and through all the ranks of officers throughout the country. The officers must be clearly made aware of the laws governing them and the standards of conduct expected of each officer, as otherwise, it is unfair to hold them against standards that they are not aware of”. Elaborating further, Justice Thurairaja PC noted that it is indeed a duty of superior officers to help subordinate officers to execute their duties by keeping them informed of these regulations, as and when they are published and subsequently amended. “It is only through such practices that appropriate conduct will be continued, and in turn encourage a sense of self-discipline among the officers themselves, thereby having a positive effect in deterring other officers from creating such incidents and thus reducing the incidence of the recurrence of offences.” However, whilst noting that "these Police Rules are valuable in relation to the expression of the conduct expected of Police officers”, Justice Thurairaja PC pointed out that in the specific context of police officers dealing with AALs, certain codes of conduct must be followed not only by police officers, but also by AALs. In Ratnayaka Weerakoonge Sandya Kumari vs. Lakshitha Weerasinghe, Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station, Meegahatenna, and Others (SC FR 75/2012), Justice Murdu N.B. Fernando PC (with Justices Aluwihare PC and Dehideniya joining) ruled that; “Another factor that should be borne in mind is that the office of an AAL is also governed by the SC (Conduct of and Etiquette for AALs) Rules of 1988 where it is specifically stated (Rule 60) that an AAL must not conduct himself/herself in any manner which would be reasonably regarded as unworthy, disgraceful, and dishonourable by AALs of good repute.” In this regard, Justice Fernando PC observed that “courtesy begets courtesy”. Thus, Justice Thurairaja PC observed that it is expected that AALs are to respect the standards, both written and unwritten, with an emphasis on good manners, etiquette, and good advocacy as highlighted by Justice Dr. Amerasinghe in his book on the “Professional Ethics and Responsibilities of Lawyers”, adding that the SC upholds such standards by expecting it from all AALs as the integrity of the legal profession rests in the interpretations afforded to their behaviour in the context of the daily execution of their tasks as a member of the legal profession, by members of the general public.


More News..