2.2 Section 77(3) Police Ordinance, No.16 of 1865, as amended by Act No.41 of
1984 gives power to an officer, not below the rank of ASP, to prohibit the protest
if he considers it expedient to do so in the interest of preserving public order.
2.3 The interpretation of Section 77(3) of the Police Ordinance, No.16 of 1865, as
amended by Act No.41 of 1984 by the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka should be
taken into account by the police when applying this provision. In Saranapala v
Solanga Arachchi, Senior Superintendent of Police and Others [1999] 2 Sri L.R.
166 the Supreme Court held that the exercise of the power in section 77(3) is
subject to the Constitution. The measures taken to maintain public order
accordingly, must be unrelated to the suppression of free expression, and the
incidental restriction on the exercise of free expression must be no more
significant than is essential to the furtherance of public order. The Supreme
Court had consistently interpreted this provision similarly over decades in
Fernando v Attorney General and Another [983] I Sri L.R. 374, Gunanardena
v Perera and Others [1983] I Sri L.R. 305, Amaratunga v Sirimal and Others
(Jana Ghosha case) [1993] 1 Sri L.R., and Senasinghe v Karunatileke, Senior
Superintendent of Police, Nugegoda [2003] 1 Sri L.R. lT2. "Exceptions to
Article 14(1)(a) must be narrowly and strictly construed for the reason that the
freedom of speech constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic
society, which, as we have seen, the Constitution in no uncertain terms, declares
Sri Lanka to be". (Amerasinghe J. in Sunila Abesekera v Ariya Rubasinghe,
Competent Authority and others, S.C. Application No. 1001 SLR 316).
3. Requirements to impose authorisation/permit restrictions
3.1.The requirement of authorisation is a de facto interference with the right under
Article 14(1)(b) of the Constitution, and any such requirement should therefore:
3.1.1. Be prescribed by law
3.1.2. Pursue a legitimate aim
3.1.3. Be proportionate
3.2. The absence of prior authorization and the ensuing ‘unlawfulness’ of a protest does
not give carte blanche to the authorities; the proportionality rule still restricts them.
18