DailyMirror
The Supreme Court yesterday (11) directed the Rupavahini and the Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation to ensure a balance of coverage in the forthcoming Parliamentary elections.The Bench comprised Chief Justice Asoka de Silva, Justices Jagath Balapatabendi and Chandra Ekanayake. The application for leave to proceed was refused.
A Fundamental Rights Violation Petition was filed against Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation and Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation for the alleged abuses of State resources and partisan use of State media resulting in the violation of people’s sovereignty in the recently held Presidential Election.
Priyanthi Subhashinie Perera, Helen Joanna Beryl Gray and Deborah Marianne Philip in their petition cited Rupavahini Corporation, its Chairman Prof. Ariyaratne Athugala, its Chief Executive Officer Karunaratne Paranavithana, Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation, its Chairman Hudson Samarasinghe, Elections Commissioner Dayananda Dissanayake and the Attorney General as Respondents.
Suren Fernando appeared for the Petitioners. Deputy Solicitor General Sanjay Rajaratnam appeared for the Attorney General.
The Petitioners stated the 2nd Respondent Karunaratne Paranavithana and 4th Respondent Hudson Samarasinghe are SLFP organizers for Ratnapura district and Colombo West respectively.
They alleged the acts and omissions of the first five Respondents, which have resulted in the use of State media resources in a manner partisan to the Candidate Mahinda Rajapaksa and against the Candidate Gen. (Rtd) Sarath Fonseka contrary to Article 93 of the Constitution, have resulted in the violation of Petitioners’ franchise and the fundamental rights to equality and equal protection of the law as well as freedom of speech and expression.
They complained that the Respondents continuously acted in defiance of the Media Guidelines issued by the Elections Commissioner and that continued acts of the Respondents in willful defiance and disregard of the directives/guidelines of the Elections Commissioner and in disregard of the Competent Authority, pursuant to which the Elections Commissioner withdrew the appointment of the Competent Authority.
They alleged that out of the total time allocated for election related items, during a specified period, in the news bulletin of Lakhanda and SLBC Sinhala National Service bulletins, 95% and 97% of time respectively was allocated to Candidate Rajapaksa while the main opposition candidate was given only 5% and 3% respectively.
They also alleged that out of the total time allocated for the election related items, during a specified period, in the news bulletin of Rupavahini approximately 100% of the time was allocated to Candidate Rajapaksa while the main opposition candidate was given virtually no airtime.
They said SLBC Chairman Hudson Samarasinghe had previously been barred from conducting programmes by the Competent Authority after he had obstructed the work of the said Competent Authority appointed by the Elections Commissioner.
They complained the Respondents also broadcast allegations against Candidate Fonseka including suggestions that his son-in-law had been wrongfully and/or improperly involved in arms procurement contracts carried out by the Government but failed to give effect to the right of reply contained in the Media Guidelines or the direction of the Elections Commissioner that Candidate Fonseka be afforded reasonable airtime to respond to statements defamatory of him which had been aired by the said State media institutions.
They also complained the Respondents of the Rupavahini also refused to accept and/or air paid advertisements submitted by Candidate Fonseka and that the Respondents of both media carried false statements suggesting that Candidate Fonseka could not stand for election to the office of President as he was not a registered elector.
They pointed out after the close of the poll, Elections Commissioner issued a statement confirming that it was not a requirement that a Presidential Candidate be a registered voter.
They alleged that quite apart from the falsity of the statement which would have discouraged voters supporting the candidature of Candidate Fonseka from exercising their franchise and the publishing of clandestine propaganda on the day of the election by the Respondents contrived both the letter and spirit of the Media Guidelines.
They complained the Respondents have acted in willful defiance and contempt of the order of the Supreme Court dated January 15, 2010 wherein the Supreme Court directed all electronic and print media to comply with the guidelines issued under Article 104B (5) (a) of the Constitution.