Dissanayaka v. Superintendent Mahara Prison and Others – sllr 1991 volume 2 page 247

In the case between Dissanayaka (Petitioner) and Superintendent Mahara Prison and others (Respondents), the court addressed the lawfulness of arrest and continued detention under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. It was held that, although initial detention was grounded on legal provisions, extensions and continued detention breached constitutional guarantees under Article 13(2), as procedural requirements and safeguards for detention were not adequately observed. The principle reaffirmed was that compliance with both substantive and procedural safeguards governing deprivation of liberty is essential, and failure to adhere strictly to these requirements constitutes a violation of fundamental rights. Reliance was placed on constitutional norms, relevant sections of the Prevention of Terroris