By: Ovindi Vishmika
April 01, Colombo (LNW): A recent case involving a female attorney in Sri Lanka has sparked national attention, not only because of the charges against her but also due to the broader implications of contempt of court laws. Attorney-at-Law P. Udayangani was remanded for contempt of court by the High Court of Puttalam after an incident on March 28. The charges against Udayangani involve allegations that she disrespected the court during two separate court proceedings. While the specifics of her behavior have become the subject of legal debate, the incident brings attention to a legal concept that is often misunderstood: contempt of court.
What is Contempt of Court?
Contempt of court refers to any act that disrespects or undermines the authority of a court, tribunal, or judicial officer. Under Sri Lanka’s Contempt of Court, Tribunal or Institution Act No. 8 of 2024, contempt can be committed by willfully disobeying a court order, scandalizing the court, or making statements that damage the reputation or dignity of the judiciary. This offense can also occur when actions or words interfere with the due administration of justice or obstruct ongoing legal proceedings.
The law is designed to preserve the integrity and dignity of the judiciary, ensuring that courts are respected and that legal processes proceed without undue disruption. Contempt can either be criminal or civil in nature. Criminal contempt typically involves actions like willfully disobeying a court order, defaming the judiciary, or making statements that incite public dissatisfaction with the court. Civil contempt, on the other hand, typically occurs when a person fails to comply with a court’s specific order, such as failing to pay alimony or comply with a ruling in a legal dispute. Article 105(3) of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal the power to punish for contempt of themselves, whether committed in the court or elsewhere.
Therefore,Contempt of court is considered a grave offense, as it undermines the rule of law and the proper functioning of the judicial system. In Sri Lanka, those found guilty of contempt can face penalties including fines of up to LKR 500,000, imprisonment for up to one year, or both. If a person is convicted of contempt more than once, the penalties are significantly increased. This harsh stance reflects the importance of maintaining the dignity and integrity of the judiciary, but it also raises concerns about the breadth and potential misuse of contempt laws.
The Case of Attorney-at-Law Udayangani
The controversy surrounding Attorney-at-Law P. Udayangani stems from two separate allegations of contempt that occurred in March 2025.
On March 7, during a bail hearing for an accused individual, Udayangani was accused of addressing the court without due respect. This incident was compounded on March 28 when she entered the courtroom without bowing to the judge, which, according to the charge sheet, allegedly constituted a failure to show the required respect.
The High Court Judge of Puttalam, Nadee Aparna Suwandurugoda, took immediate action by remanding Udayangani for contempt of court. The charges cited her failure to address the court properly and her behavior during a bail hearing. However, the case took a turn when newly appointed President of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL), Rajeev Amarasuriya, intervened, filing an urgent petition in the Court of Appeal.
Court of Appeal Ruling
On March 31, the Court of Appeal issued an interim order suspending the Puttalam High Court’s decision to remand Attorney-at-Law P. Udayangani. This ruling came after a writ petition was filed by BASL President Rajeev Amarasuriya, who argued that the High Court’s actions were unjust, arbitrary, and unreasonable.
A two-judge bench of the Court of Appeal, consisting of Acting President Justice M.T. Mohammed Laffar and Justice K. Priyantha Fernando, ordered Udayangani’s immediate release from remand custody. The court also issued notices to the relevant parties, setting a return date for April 28.
The petition cited multiple respondents, including Judge Nadee Aparna Suwandurugoda of the Puttalam High Court, the Registrar of the Puttalam High Court, the Commissioner General of Prisons, Udayangani herself, and the Attorney General.
The controversy began when Udayangani was remanded for failing to meet bail conditions related to contempt charges. BASL President Amarasuriya contended that the High Court’s ruling was arbitrary and posed a threat to the judicial system. He emphasized that the petition was filed in good faith to address the potential negative effects of the case, which could lead to tensions between the judiciary and legal professionals.
Legal Community Responds
The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL), led by newly appointed President Rajeev Amarasuriya, intervened in the matter, filing an urgent petition in the Court of Appeal. The appeal was heard on March 31, a public holiday for the Eid-al-Fitr festival, underscoring the seriousness with which the BASL viewed the case. The Court of Appeal granted interim relief, suspending the remand order and releasing Udayangani on the condition that she appear before the court on April 28.
Prominent legal figures, including senior lawyers Faisz Musthapha, PC, and Saliya Pieris, PC, supported the appeal, arguing that the remand was disproportionate and highlighted the difficulties in fulfilling the bail conditions within the given time frame.
In their submission, the lawyers pointed out that the High Court Judge had not adhered to procedural safeguards in contempt cases, specifically the requirement that an accused person be offered the option of being tried by a different judge, as outlined in Section 11(2) of the Contempt of Court Act.
While the case has focused attention on Udayangani’s actions, it also brings to light the broader issue of contempt laws in Sri Lanka. Legal professionals have long expressed concerns about the vague nature of contempt provisions. Terms such as “disrespect,” “scandalizing the court,” and “obstructing justice” are not clearly defined, which leaves room for subjective interpretations by judges. This vagueness has led to fears that contempt charges could be used to silence criticism or dissent, particularly when it comes to judicial decisions or actions.
Critics argue that in cases like Udayangani’s, the response to alleged contempt may be disproportionate to the alleged offense. In her case, the failure to bow and the tone of her address may be seen as disrespectful, but many question whether such actions warrant such severe consequences, including remand and stringent bail conditions. Furthermore, the lack of clarity surrounding what constitutes contempt of court in practice raises concerns that individuals could be unjustly punished for minor missteps.
In response to these concerns, the BASL has stated that it will be pushing for amendments to the Contempt of Court, Tribunal or Institution Act to ensure greater clarity and fairness. The association has expressed its commitment to ensuring that the law is applied in a way that protects both the dignity of the judiciary and the rights of legal professionals to express themselves without fear of retaliation.
Looking Forward
The case has also prompted a wider debate about the delicate balance between the judiciary and the legal profession in Sri Lanka. While mutual respect between the bench and the bar is essential for the smooth administration of justice, there is a growing call for a more transparent and predictable system that allows for a fair balance between the authority of the court and the rights of individuals while respecting the freedom of expression.
Contempt of court is a serious offense that ensures the integrity of the judicial system, but it also carries significant consequences for those involved. The case of Attorney-at-Law P. Udayangani highlights the complexity and gravity of contempt charges, especially when they involve legal professionals bound by high standards of conduct.
As the legal proceedings continue, the case of Udayangani will likely serve as a touchstone for future discussions on contempt of court in Sri Lanka. With its potential to reshape how the law is applied, this case is one to watch closely, as it highlights both the importance of upholding judicial dignity and the need to protect fundamental freedoms in a democratic society.
