Leo Fernando v. Attorney‑General – sllr 1991 volume 2 page 214

In the case between Cannosa Investments Limited and Earnest Perera and others, the court addressed whether actions by police officers entering a casino under a search warrant—issued without strict statutory compliance with the Gaming Ordinance—constituted “executive or administrative action” under Articles 17 and 126 of the Constitution. It was held that such action, executed pursuant to a judicial warrant, even when alleged to be erroneous or malicious, remained within the domain of judicial process and did not fall under the categories of executive or administrative action for the purposes of constitutional redress. The holding reaffirmed the principle that liability under Article 126 does not extend to acts undertaken in faithful execution of judicial orders, relying on established prec