States of Emergency - Centre for Policy Alternatives

ights petitions have concerned violations arising from excesses of
emergency powers, and powers exercised under the PTA.
In Visuvalingam
v.
Liyanage (1984), 330 an early example of judicial
deference, the majority upheld the sealing of a newspaper through
emergency powers on the basis that during a state of emergency
the State’s prerogative in respect of national security and public
order could prohibit freedom of expression (Article 14 (1) (a)),
and further that such exercise of prerogative could not attract
judicial review. 331 It is interesting that in the more rightsconscious
dissenting opinions of Wanasudera and Soza J.J., the
judges made reference to Sri Lanka’s international obligations
under the ICCPR. Similarly, the court upheld a wide discretion for
the State in respect of arrest and detention during emergencies on
the basis of Article 15 (1) and (7) restrictions on rights protected
by Article 13, in early cases such as Yasapala
 v.
 Wickremasinghe
(1980), 332 Kumaratunga
v.
Samarasinghe
(1986) 333 and Edirisuriya
v.
 Navaratnam
 and
 Others
 (1985). 334 Even in cases concerning
allegations of egregious abuses such as torture (Article 11 and
which is an absolute right), the court can be found applying
330
Visuvalingam
and
Others
v.
Liyanage
and
Others
(1983) 2 SLR 311;
(1984) 1 SLR 305; (1984) 2 SLR 123
331
Siriwardene
and
Others
v.
Liyanage
and
Others
(1983)2 SLR 164
332
Yasapala
v.
Wickramasinghe
(1980) 1 FRD 143;
333
Kumaranatunge
v.
Samarasinghe,
Additional
Secretary,
Ministry
of
Defence
and
Others (1983) 2 SLR 63
334
Edirisuriya
v.
Navaratnam
and
Others
(1985) 1 SLR 100
215