The recent incident where a lawyer was held in contempt of court has sparked a discourse about the practical application of the relevant law, especially its limits, as the judge’s actions in this case appeared to be excessive.
On 28 March, it was reported that the lawyer in question, P. Udayangani, who represented a client in the Puttalam High Court (HC), had been held in contempt of court, and had subsequently been remanded as she had failed to fulfill the bail requirements. The charges against her were allegedly failing to bow when entering the Court which the Judge had deemed disrespectful and allegedly addressing the Court without due respect during a case that the lawyer was appearing for. The HC Judge involved in the incident, Nadee Aparna Suwandurugoda, had set bail at two sureties, a residence certificate from the Puttalam area, and an asset certificate worth Rs. 2.5 million. The request for an extension to provide these had been rejected.
The incident raises several serious concerns.
While a judge has discretion to determine the scale of punishment, it is apparent that these alleged charges hardly satisfy the definitions of contempt of court and warrants bail conditions of the said scale. More importantly, it should be noted that contempt laws exist to protect and prevent the obstruction of the judicial process. There is a question as to whether the alleged failure on the part of the lawyer to bow when entering the Court affected the judicial process and the manner in which she acted during the hearing meant any disrespect towards the Court and went beyond representing her client.
At the same time, many parties have expressed concerns about the day on which the lawyer was remanded (upon failing to fulfill the bail requirements), as it was a Friday followed by a weekend and a public holiday (Monday) which makes obtaining and submitting the bail-related documents almost impossible.
The Court of Appeal however superseded the HC’s decision to remand the lawyer, and released her upon considering a writ petition filed seeking her release. However, this incident also begs the question as to whether traditions that do not necessarily constitute an offence according to written laws – which in this case pertains to bowing when entering the court – can be considered an act of contempt of court. In a context where contempt of court laws give a significant extent of discretion to a judge; a judge should not misuse the same. As the saying goes, ‘with great power comes great responsibility’, and such responsibility is particularly crucial when it comes to the Judiciary which has a key role in ensuring the rule of law.
In response to the incident at the Puttalam HC, the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) stated that it was ‘very concerned’ about the Contempt of a Court, Tribunal, or Institution Act under which the said lawyer had been remanded. BASL President, attorney Rajeev Amarasuriya remarked that attention must be paid to the bigger picture that this incident points out, i.e. the said Act. Calling it a ‘draconian piece of legislation’, he added that the BASL is considering what steps should be taken in that regard.
Laws exist to protect the rule of law. When laws are enforced in an excessive manner, or in a manner that the public feels excessive, it does not send a positive message about the Judiciary. On the contrary, such is capable of adversely impacting the public trust in the Judiciary. Even in the abovementioned case, unless there were clear reasons to believe that the lawyer’s alleged actions were meant to insult the court, her alleged actions could have been dealt with a mere warning and addressed in open court. It must also be noted that in a context where there has been no explanation on the judge’s side of the incident, we can only discuss the issue based on the information that has been publicly disclosed. However, the contempt law is not meant to protect the personal reputations or the whims and fancies of the gatekeepers of the law.