By: Nalinda Indatissa (President’s Counsel)
The administration of justice in Sri Lanka rests on the principle that disputes must be resolved fairly, openly, and according to law. A central feature of this system is the role played by Attorneys-at-Law. Legal representation is not merely a private convenience for litigants; it is an essential mechanism through which courts are able to deliver fair, reasonable, carefully considered, and credible justice.
Right of a Suspect or Accused Person to Legal Representation
The Constitution of Sri Lanka expressly guarantees the right of a person charged with an offence to be represented by an Attorney-at-Law. Article 13(3) provides that any person charged with an offence shall be entitled to be heard, either in person or by an Attorney-at-Law, at a fair trial before a competent court. This elevates legal representation to the level of a fundamental right and makes it an indispensable component of a fair trial.
This constitutional guarantee is further strengthened by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Act, No. 56 of 2007. Section 4(1)(b) affirms the right of an accused person to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing and requires that he be informed of that right. Section 4(1)(c) goes further by providing for State-funded legal assistance where the interests of justice so require and the accused lacks sufficient means. These provisions transform the constitutional right into a practical and enforceable safeguard.
The Judicature Act, No. 2 of 1978, provides the institutional framework within which these rights operate. Courts established under the Act function on the basis that parties may appear in person or through Attorneys-at-Law, who are recognised as officers of court with a right of audience. Although the Judicature Act does not itself create the right to representation, it enables the constitutional and statutory guarantees to be exercised in practice.
Read together, the Constitution, the ICCPR Act, and the Judicature Act firmly establish that a suspect or accused person has a strong and protected right to be represented by an Attorney-at-Law.
Right of an Aggrieved Party to Legal Representation
An aggrieved party or victim does not derive a constitutional right to representation from Article 13(3), as that provision is confined to persons charged with offences. However, Parliament has expressly recognised the importance of legal representation for victims through statute.
The Assistance to and Protection of Victims of Crime and Witnesses Act, No. 4 of 2015, permits aggrieved parties and witnesses to be represented by Attorneys-at-Law in court. This statutory right is intended to ensure meaningful participation, protection from intimidation, and proper articulation of the victim’s interests within the justice process. While statutory in nature, this right reflects a clear legislative policy that victims are not to be excluded or silenced in criminal proceedings.
How Legal Representation Improves the Quality and Credibility of Justice
Legal representation enables courts to deliver justice that is fair, reasonable, and carefully considered. Lawyers assist courts by identifying the real issues, presenting facts coherently, explaining the applicable law, and testing evidence through cross-examination. This assistance helps judges arrive at decisions based on reasoned legal analysis rather than incomplete information or emotional presentation.
Judgments delivered after hearing counsel carry greater credibility than decisions made in closed or informal settings. When arguments are tested openly and on record, judicial reasoning is sharpened, errors are minimised, and public confidence is strengthened. Such judgments are more consistent, more predictable, and more resilient on appeal.
Although lawyers appear on behalf of litigants, they are not partisan leaders. They are officers of court whose primary duty is to the court and to the administration of justice. They are bound by ethical and professional obligations not to mislead the court, not to abuse procedure, and to conduct themselves with candour and restraint. This special position explains why courts rely on counsel and why representation enhances, rather than undermines, judicial authority.
Obstruction of Legal Representation and the Contempt of Court Framework
Any act that interferes with legal representation strikes at the heart of the justice system. Threatening, intimidating, or assaulting a lawyer because of submissions made in court, positions taken in litigation, or representation provided to a client is not a private matter. It directly undermines the rights of accused persons, the participatory rights of victims, and the administration of justice itself.
The Contempt of a Court, Tribunal or Institution Act, No. 8 of 2024, expressly addresses such interference. Section 3(1)(b) provides that any act done with intent to interfere with, or cause grave prejudice to, the judicial process in relation to any ongoing litigation constitutes contempt of court. Where a lawyer is threatened or assaulted to deter him or her from appearing, continuing representation, or advancing submissions, such conduct is capable of falling squarely within this provision.
Further, section 3(2)(c)(ii) and (iii) deem it contempt to do any act that gravely prejudices or unlawfully interferes with the due course of a judicial proceeding, or that interferes with or obstructs the administration of justice. Intimidation or violence directed at lawyers because of their professional role is a clear form of obstruction of justice and may therefore attract contempt jurisdiction, in addition to ordinary criminal liability.
Because lawyers are officers of court, interference with them is treated not merely as an offence against an individual, but as an attack on the judicial process itself. The Act thus reinforces the principle that justice must be protected not only inside the courtroom, but also against external pressures and retaliation connected with court proceedings.
