Former Commissioner General of Prisons Thushara Upuldeniya has challenged the sufficiency of the evidence against him in the case alleging he fabricated official documents to falsely record that inmates had received presidential pardons, the Daily Mirror reported on Friday.
The case was called before Chief Magistrate Asanga Bodaragama in Colombo, where police told court the Attorney General had forwarded a plaint containing two charges. After the charges were read to the accused, Senior Counsel Darshana Kuruppu raised a preliminary objection: the B Report and the reports filed after it, he argued, do not disclose sufficient evidence to proceed.
Police sought time to respond. The Chief Magistrate fixed the matter for further hearing on 29 October 2026. Kuruppu appeared with Attorney-at-Law Rajitha Kulatunga.
The defence case
Counsel’s argument, as reported, is that Upuldeniya was a conduit rather than an author. Citing a Court of Appeal judgment delivered by Justice Neil Iddewela, Kuruppu submitted that his client had written to the Secretary to the Minister of Justice on the basis of letters forwarded to him by Mohan Karunaratne, Superintendent of the Anuradhapura Prison — acting on communications received and bringing the matter to the Ministry’s attention.
The defence added three further points: that the Criminal Investigation Department began its investigation following several social media campaigns concerning the President; that the President had no involvement in the Superintendent’s decision to release an inmate; and that the Human Rights Commission had determined there were no justifiable grounds for Upuldeniya’s arrest.
That last point is on the record. In April, the HRCSL ruled that the arrest and suspension of Upuldeniya violated his fundamental rights, finding that both the CID and the Secretary to the Ministry of Justice had acted outside constitutional bounds. A Commission finding of that kind does not bind a Magistrate on the sufficiency of evidence, and the report does not say whether the prosecution disputes it.
A different case from the Gnanasara pardon
The phrase “presidential pardon” is attached to two unrelated proceedings in the news this week, and they should not be confused.
This matter concerns prison paperwork: whether releases from the Anuradhapura Prison were falsely documented as pardons. It is a criminal prosecution in the Magistrate’s Court against a former official.
The separate case decided on Thursday was a constitutional one, in which the Supreme Court invalidated former President Maithripala Sirisena’s 2019 pardon of Ven. Galagoda Atte Gnanasara Thera, holding that executive power is held in trust and must be exercised in the public interest. Different court, different parties, different subject matter.
Not reported
No other newsroom had covered Friday’s hearing at the time of writing. The Daily Mirror does not state the two charges or the statute under which they are brought, name the inmates said to have been falsely recorded as pardoned, say how many releases are involved or when they occurred, or give the date of Upuldeniya’s arrest. Whether Superintendent Karunaratne faces any proceedings of his own is not stated, and no response from the Attorney General’s Department to the preliminary objection is reported. The report does not say whether Upuldeniya remains suspended or has been reinstated.
