Colombo, Oct 26 (Daily Mirror) - The Supreme Court has declared null and void the remission of a prison sentence granted to a man by former President Ranil Wickremesinghe under a General Amnesty in September 2024, ruling that the decision violated the Fundamental Right to equality and equal protection of the law.
A three-judge bench comprising Justices Janak De Silva, Dr Sobhitha Rajakaruna and Sampath Wijeratne held that the man had received preferential treatment because his warrant of commitment described his sentence as being in default of payment of a “fine”, while another man sentenced for non-payment of maintenance was granted only a one-week remission.
The Court ruled that the distinction based on the wording of the warrants had no substantive legal basis, as both men had been imprisoned for defaulting on maintenance payments.
The Supreme Court held that the former President, the Secretary to the Ministry of Justice and the Commissioner General of Prisons had acted in violation of Article 12(1) of the Constitution.
The Court delivered this judgment pursuant to a fundamental rights petition filed by Ahamend Jaleel Farmilla Begum, who had obtained a maintenance order from the Colombo East Quazi Court directing her former husband to pay a total of Rs. 60,000 in maintenance.
Following his failure to comply with the order, the Magistrate’s Court of Negombo issued an enforcement certificate for maintenance arrears amounting to Rs. 1.74 million. The former husband was subsequently sentenced to 29 months’ imprisonment and admitted to prison in July 2024.
However, following a recommendation by the then Minister of Justice for a General Amnesty to mark Prisoners’ Day, the remainder of his sentence was remitted, and he was released on September 12, 2024.
The petitioner later challenged the remission, arguing that it was arbitrary and had deprived her of the ability to recover the maintenance arrears. She also contended that another man, Mohamed Faizal Mohamed Nawshad, who had been imprisoned for defaulting on maintenance payments, had not received the same benefit.
The Court observed that Nawshad had served approximately eight months of a 27-month prison sentence by the time the amnesty was granted but received only a one-week remission. In contrast, the petitioner’s former husband had served less than two months of his 29-month sentence before the remainder was remitted.
Clarify the headline and verdictTighten the story for web