HUMAN RIGHT COMMISSION OF SRI LANKA - Annual report 2020 Commission found that the teacher and principal in question have acted in violation of circular No. 12/2016 which prohibits corporal punishment being inflicted on students even for disciplinary purposes and concluded that Articles 11 and 12(1) of the Constitution had been violated. The Commission noted that teachers are loco-parents of their students and should conduct themselves as stipulated by Circular No. 37/2012. The Commission recommended disciplinary action be taken against the 1st and 2nd respondents by the Ministry of Education and further recommended the Secretary to the Ministry to take necessary action to raise awareness among school principals and teachers on the content of the above circulars. It was also recommended that as the Circular No.12/2016 only takes physical punishment into consideration, measures should be taken by the Ministry of Education to include punishments affecting the mental well-being of the students in the said procedure stipulated by the circular.  Arbitrary Arrest of a person without a proper investigation (Complaint No. HRC/AP/220/14) In this case, the Commission concluded that the Fundamental Rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Articles 12(1) and 13 of the Constitution were violated by the Anuradhapura Police when he was arrested without conducting a proper investigation for the possession of Cannabis with the intention to sell. The respondents contended that the arrest was made after finding Cannabis in the Trishaw of the victim upon searching it pursuant to information received from a private informant of the police. The victim claimed that the Cannabis found by the police was planted by a decoy of the said private informant with the intention of framing the victim. Two eyewitnesses testified to having witnessed a third party (who had later been identified as the decoy) place an object in the victim’s Trishaw on the day of the arrest while the victim had gone in search of a traffic police officer to report the same third party who had allegedly harassed him asking to purchase drugs. The Commission noted that despite receiving statements regarding the irregularities surrounding the arrest in question from other police officers involved in the raid (such as the traffic police officer at the scene), the 6th respondent, the Headquarters Inspector (HQI), had filed charges against the victim in the Magistrate’s Court without investigating the matter further. The said charges have been withdrawn by the police subsequently as it had come to light that the said complaint had been made 53