Editorial

Security

Politics

World

Letters

Sports

Obituaries

Archives

In meeting these questions, the Supreme Court upheld a restrictive line of reasoning reflected in an earlier decision of the Court, observing that it has never been doubted that when a government is in the throes of a struggle for the very existence of the State, the security of the State may be protected.

In the instant case, a violent conflict was ongoing in the North and the East and the petitioner had not shown that the grounds of national security on which basis the regulations were imposed, was a 'pretext'. In any event, the Court affirmed that it could not strike down an otherwise constitutional statute on the basis of an alleged illicit motive.

This judicial reasoning prevailed to an even greater extent when dealing with the question as to whether the regulation was "necessary in a democratic state," which, in effect, was the petitioner's primary cause of dissatisfaction.

The Court conceded that this requirement had to be 'read into' the constitutional provisions permitting restrictions on fundamental rights.

Accordingly, a restriction, even if justified by compelling governmental interests, such as the interests of national security, must be framed so as not to limited the right of free expression more than is necessary. It must be proportionate and closely tailored to the accomplishment of legitimate government objectives.

The two month censorship was consequently brought to an abrupt end. But hardly a week later, the May regulations were amended by President Chandrika Kumaratunga, re-appointing the Competent Authority in accordance with the Supreme Court judgement.

The new regulation expressly prohibited reports on procurement of military supplies which had been omitted from the earlier regulations as a result of media protests that it would inhibit reporting on corruption in the armed forces. It also imposed a regime of self-censorship on the media.

These concerns were raised before the Supreme Court in late July when the Editors Guild petition and connected petitions came up for hearing. A substantive consideration of the factual contents of these petitions had been preceded by the ruling in The Sunday Leader case which invalidated the entire censorship.

Opining, however, that any system of censorship must be worked out harmoniously between the journalists and the authorities, the Court ordered the Competent Authority to meet up with the editors before the end of the month to finalise acceptable guidelines under the new regulations.

The Competent Authority then became far more circumspect, confining his censorial scissors to strictly military-related news. Even then, warning letters were received periodically by the newspapers, one specific instance being with regard to reporting on the controversy surrounding the appointment of a new army chief.

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager