In a landmark judgment delivered this week, the Supreme Court ruled that the arrest and detention of two farmers from Kalukele village who participated in a protest against the rising threat of human-elephant conflict constituted a violation of their fundamental rights.
The ruling is being hailed as a significant step in reinforcing the constitutional protections afforded to citizens, particularly in the context of peaceful protest and environmental justice.
The judgment was handed down by a Bench comprising Chief Justice Murdu Fernando, Justices Yasantha Kodagoda, and S. Thurairaja. The Court found that the arrest, remanding and treatment of the two farmers violated their right to freedom of expression, as well as protections against arbitrary arrest and detention.
A community silenced
The events leading to the case date back to June 6, 2018, when over 200 villagers in Kalukele, on the Mahiyanganaya-Polonnaruwa main road blocked the road to protest against the lack of action on the increasing incidents of elephant encroachment.
Despite repeated complaints to the Department of Wildlife Conservation, no effective solution had been provided. Protesters demanded urgent attention to the damage caused to homes, livelihoods, and even human lives due to elephant incursions.
The following day, a meeting was held at the local police station with the participation of Wildlife Department officials, but no resolution was reached. Weeks later, on June 18, only two farmers from the protest were summoned to the station.
They were arrested on the basis of allegedly violating a court order though their names were not mentioned in any such order and were subsequently remanded until July 2.
Their release came only after multiple bail applications were filed and challenged. With legal representation by Counsel Nuwan Bopage, acting on the advice of Counsel Chathura Wettasinghe, the farmers later filed a fundamental rights petition in the Supreme Court.
In a compelling presentation, Bopage submitted evidence including photographs of crop damage and destruction to homes, illustrating the deep impact of the human-elephant conflict on rural communities.
He said that the arrests had been made under public and political pressure, not legal necessity, and that the remand orders were unjustified.
The Court ruled in favour of the petitioners, ordering the Officer-in-Charge of Aralaganwila Police S.M.L.R Bandara to pay Rs. 30,000 in compensation to each farmer from his personal funds, an uncommon but powerful move to ensure individual accountability.
Broader implications and institutional instructions
Beyond the individual case, the judgment carries broader implications for law enforcement, wildlife management, and the justice system.
The Supreme Court emphasized that in a democratic society, the police must safeguard and not suppress the rights of citizens engaging in peaceful protest.
It also said that remanding persons should be a last resort, not a default action based on police request.
The Court also issued a series of directions to key State actors. The Attorney General and the Inspector General of Police were instructed to disseminate the principles of this judgment to all police stations while judicial training institutes were directed to include these principles in their training syllabus, especially on the proper use of remand and bail in line with criminal justice standards.
The Wildlife Department and relevant Government agencies were reminded of their obligation to develop sustainable and scientific solutions to the human-elephant conflict.
The Supreme Court also requested to be informed within six months of what actions had been taken in response to these directives.
The judgment underscores the growing pressure on State institutions to respond to environmental and social crises with sensitivity and Constitutional responsibility. It also acknowledges the evolving challenge of managing wild animal habitats amid increasing human settlement and agricultural expansion, a problem exacerbated by unplanned development and shrinking forest cover.
A path forward?
Perhap,s the most significant outcome of the ruling is the framework it offers for future conduct. By clearly setting out the responsibilities of police, Government officials, the Wildlife Department, and the Judiciary, the Court has paved the way for a more rights-based and coordinated approach to governance particularly when dealing with complex human-wildlife interactions.
For the villagers of Kalukele and others affected by similar conflicts across the country, this judgment is a rare and powerful affirmation that their voices matter and that their rights must be protected.
As Sri Lanka continues to grapple with the dual challenge of rural poverty and human-elephant conflict, this ruling may well mark a turning point, both in how the State addresses environmental grievances and in how it upholds the rights of those who raise them.
