Supreme Court Rules Deshabandu Tennakoon Violated Fundamental Rights During Aragalaya Arrest
One of Sri Lanka’s most consequential judgments on police accountability in recent years was delivered yesterday when the Supreme Court ruled that the former Inspector General of Police Deshabandu Tennakoon – who was removed from the Police service – violated the Fundamental Rights of a young man who was arrested and detained during the Aragalaya protests in 2022.
The judgment reaches far beyond the conduct of one senior police officer.
It speaks directly to the constitutional limits of police authority during periods of political unrest and reinforces an enduring principle that even in times of public disorder, law enforcement remains subject to the Constitution and the protection of individual liberties.
The case arose from the arrest and subsequent detention of the petitioner during the height of the anti-government demonstrations that swept the country in 2022. The Supreme Court found that the petitioner’s constitutional rights had been infringed and directed that compensation be paid, while identifying the responsibility of former IGP Tennakoon in the violations.
Although the Aragalaya has now passed into history, its legal consequences continue to unfold.
The judgment will almost certainly become an important reference point whenever future courts are asked to consider the legality of arrests made during demonstrations, political protests or public emergencies.
It also serves as a reminder that police powers, however extensive, are never unlimited. For the disgraced Deshabandu Tennakoon, the ruling adds to an already extraordinary legal journey.
Having previously faced adverse judicial findings relating to police conduct and subsequently becoming embroiled in separate criminal proceedings, another adverse determination by the country’s highest court inevitably raises broader questions regarding leadership, institutional accountability and public confidence in policing.
For the Police Department itself, however, the significance is even greater.
Modern democratic policing depends not simply upon authority, but upon legitimacy. Public cooperation is secured not merely through the enforcement of law, but through confidence that officers themselves remain accountable to the same legal standards imposed upon every citizen.
The Supreme Court’s decision therefore should not be viewed as weakening the Police.
Quite the contrary.
By reaffirming constitutional safeguards, the Court has reinforced the principle that effective policing and respect for fundamental rights are not competing objectives but complementary obligations within a democratic society.
Be that as it may, perhaps the most enduring message from yesterday’s judgment is that in Sri Lanka, the Constitution remains the ultimate guardian of liberty – and no office, however senior, stands above it.
