• Initial stakeholder consultations to include law enforcement, Judiciary, subject matter experts
• Internal Police inquiries, disciplinary action underway against relevant Police officers
• NCPA not automatically informed when a child is arrested 

The Ministry of Women and Child Affairs will begin drafting new policies and regulations to safeguard children in Police custody. This follows a Supreme Court judgment concerning the unlawful arrest and treatment of a minor.

Deputy Minister of Women and Child Affairs Dr. Namal Sudarshana confirmed that while his ministry had not previously focused on regulations concerning children in custody, the ruling had placed the issue on the ministry’s immediate agenda.

“The court has established a critical new standard that a child must be presented to their parents within six hours of arrest,” Dr. Sudarshana said. 

“The verdict clearly affirmed that the human rights of the child were violated, and this judgment compels us to act. We will work with the Ministry of Justice, the National Child Protection Authority (NCPA), and other agencies to develop strong policies, and if necessary, introduce new laws and regulations. Arresting a child must be fundamentally differentiated from an ordinary arrest,” he added.

According to the Deputy Minister, initial steps will include consultations with stakeholders from the Police, the Judiciary, probation services, and child protection experts.

The case behind the ruling

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court delivered a strong message on the rights of children, ordering the Inspector General of Police (IGP) to implement a new directive that guarantees parental access to a minor within six hours of their arrest. The verdict, issued on 1 September, came in a Fundamental Rights application filed by a minor and his mother against a Police officer for unlawful arrest and torture.

The case, SC/FR Application No.87/2023, involved a 16-year-old boy, Kamaldeen Ilham Ahmed, who was unlawfully arrested and tortured by Hatharaliyadda Police Station Acting Officer-in-Charge IP Weerakoon.

According to the court’s findings, the minor was arrested on 7 August 2022, a day before a formal complaint was filed. The court also determined that the arrest was made without a reasonable suspicion of an offence. 

During his time in Police custody, the young petitioner testified that he was subjected to brutal physical and mental torture, including being beaten on the soles of his feet and having chilli extract squeezed into his eyes. Medical evidence presented to the court corroborated the abuse.

The court also heard how the minor’s mother was denied access to her son, despite being at the Police station and hearing his screams for help. Furthermore, the minor was improperly detained in a cell with an unrelated adult, in violation of the Children and Young Persons Ordinance.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Janak De Silva, Menaka Wijesundera, and Sampath B. Abayakoon, ruled that the actions of IP Weerakoon had violated the fundamental rights of both the minor and his mother. 

The court found that the Police officer had infringed upon the minor’s rights under Article 11 (freedom from torture), Article 12(1) (right to equal protection of the law), and Articles 13(1) and 13(2) (rights relating to lawful arrest and detention) of the Constitution. The mother’s rights under Article 11 were also deemed to have been violated due to the mental and emotional distress she suffered.

In a historic declaration, the court ordered IP Weerakoon to pay a total of Rs. 375,000 in compensation from his personal funds, with Rs. 300,000 going to the minor and Rs. 75,000 to his mother.

Most notably, the Supreme Court used its “just and equitable jurisdiction” to issue a directive to the IGP. The order mandates that all Police officers must grant the parents or a close relative of an arrested minor access to them within six hours of their arrest and before they are produced before a magistrate.

Disciplinary measures

Minister of Public Security Ananda Wijepala said that internal Police disciplinary measures would follow the Supreme Court’s decision.

“The courts have issued a verdict of guilty and have ordered him to pay compensation from his own pockets. Beyond that, there is a responsibility to ensure disciplinary action is taken within the Police force,” the Minister stated.

He explained that officers facing legal proceedings of this nature were prevented from receiving promotions. “Our system prevents any officer facing charges of this nature from receiving promotions. When a Police officer is caught in legal proceedings for wrongdoing, we conduct our own investigations and take the necessary measures,” he said. Wijepala added that legal remedies were available in such cases.

“In this case, there was no pressure on the parties filing the action. The relevant Police officer was exposed, the law took effect, and the courts have delivered their judgment. The law is equal for everyone, and Police officers are well aware of the consequences of failing to comply with their training and responsibilities.”

NCPA on the court’s decision

NCPA Chairperson Preethi Inoka Ranasinghe, a former High Court Judge, said the verdict was significant because it created a new standard applicable to all cases of child arrest.

“The child was held in Police custody for over one-and-a-half days without being produced before a magistrate, which violates the 24-hour requirement under the Criminal Procedure Code,” she explained. “The mother was also denied access, despite being at the Police station and hearing her son’s screams. That is a serious breach.”

Ranasinghe emphasised that the court’s decision had introduced a binding rule, noting: “The six-hour rule for parental access is a new precedent. A Supreme Court ruling carries the weight of law and is binding on all authorities. This now establishes a clear standard for law enforcement officers in handling children.”

She added that under the Children and Young Persons Ordinance, the Police is required to notify a probation officer whenever a child is taken into custody. The failure to comply with this provision in the present case added to the violations.

The NCPA Chairperson also noted that Sri Lanka was bound by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which requires children in custody to be treated with humanity and allowed contact with their families.

On the scope of the NCPA’s mandate, Ranasinghe stated: “The NCPA is not automatically notified when a child is arrested unless the matter involves abuse. Our role is to monitor and advise where deviations occur. The Police is aware of the correct procedures, but knowing the rules and following them are two different things, and violations sometimes occur.”

She also outlined the protections that applied to minors under the justice system, noting: “The competence of a child to be found guilty of an offence is not determined by the Police at the time of arrest but by a psychiatric assessment during trial. Custodial sentences are not imposed on children. Instead, courts may release them to their parents on a bond subject to a probation order or place them in a certified school. This framework reflects the protective approach of our legal system towards minors.”

Next steps

The Ministry of Women and Child Affairs has pledged to translate the Supreme Court ruling into practice by initiating inter-agency discussions on child protection in custody. This process will involve the Ministry of Justice, the NCPA, probation officers, and law enforcement agencies.

According to Dr. Sudharshana, the ministry’s aim is to create a legal and policy environment where the arrest and detention of a child is recognised as a distinct category, subject to heightened protections and oversight.