Case of Lama Hewage Lal6fuS iuSnkaOj oSr®> f,i idlpSPd lr we;' fuu kvqfjs fm;aiuslref.a iajdusmqreIhd jk ,d,a hk wh urKhg m;ajkafka nkaOkd.dr ks<Odrska f.a lDDr jOysxidjg ,lajsfuks' fuu kvqfjsos ks;sfhka kshu lrkq ,enq ldr®hmgsmdgshg wkql=,j ksis wOslrKhla jsiska lrkq ,enq wd{djla wkqj usi lsisu ;eke;a;l= urKhg m;alsrsu fyda nkaOkd.dr .; lsrsu fkdl, hq;= nj ;srKh lr we; tysos .re jsksYaphldr;=ud ish ;skaoqfjys my; mrsos ioyka lr we; The alleged violation of Article 13(4) of the Constitution The Petitioners have alleged that the deceased’s fundamental right guaranteed in terms of Article 13(4) of the Constitution was violated by the actions of the 03rd, 4th and 5th Respondents. “I am of the view of the Article 13(4) should be interpreted broadly to mean that the said article recognizes the right to life impliedly and that by reading Article 13(4) with Article 126(2) of the Constitution which would include the lawful heirs and/or dependents to be able to bring in an action in a situation where death had occurred as a result of violation of Article11 ;jo In Kotabadu Durage Sriyani Silva Vs Chanaka Iddamalgoda, Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Payagala7 kvqfjSoS wOslrKhlska kshu lrk oKavkhloS yer wfkla iEu jsgu huS ;eke;af;l+g PSj;ajSfuS whs;sjdislula we;s nj ;SrKh lr we;' ^that a person has a right to live, unless a Court orders otherwise & ;jo fuu kvqfjsoS wdKavql%u jHjia:dfjS 13^4& jHjia:dj u.ska PSj;ajSfuS whs;sh jHx.fhka ms<sf.k we;s nj idlpSPdjg noqka lr we; A careful reading of Article 13(4) of the Constitution clearly reveals that no person should be punished with death or imprisonment except by an order of a competent Court. Accordingly if there is no order from such a Court no person should be punished with death and unless and otherwise such an order is made by a competent court, any person has a right to live. Considering the contents of Article 13(4) of the Constitution, Fernando J. stated that, expressed positively, that provision means Furthermore, when Article 13(4) of the Constitution creates a right to life, even impliedly, there cannot be a situation where such right is without a remedy. On a consideration of the aforementioned positions as well as the decisions taken in both judgements of Kotabadu Durage Sriyani Silva (Supra) I am of the view of the Article 13(4) should be interpreted broadly to mean that the said article recognizes the right to life impliedly and that by reading Article 13(4) with Article 126(2) of the Constitution which would include the lawful heirs and/or dependents to be able to bring in an action in a situation where death had occurred as a result of violation of Article 11. Kapugeekiyana Vs. Hettiarachchi8 kvqfjsos b;d oreKq wmrdOldrhl= yg jqjo uq,sl whs;sjdislus i|yd whs;sjdislula we;s nj ms,sf.k we;' fus yd iudku kvq ;skaoqjla jk Amal Sudath silva Vs. Kodithuwakku9 os wOslrKh my; ;srKhg t,U we;' 6 S.C. (FR) Application No. 700/2002 SC [FR] No. 471/2000, SC Minutes of 08.08.2003 8 (1984) 2 SLR 153 9 (1987) 2 SLR 119 7 37