The Supreme Court has dismissed 40 fundamental rights petitions challenging promotions granted across several ranks of the Police Service, NewsFirst reported on Saturday.

The petitions were filed by nearly 1,050 police officers who had not received promotions. In dismissing them, the court observed that the petitioners had failed to provide sufficient information to establish that irregularities had occurred in the promotion process.

The scale of the challenge

The numbers are the story here. Forty petitions carrying roughly 1,050 petitioners works out to about 26 officers per petition β€” these were group actions, not individual grievances, and they were brought against promotions at the working core of the force:

The promotions under challenge were granted between 2019 and 2023, during the tenures of three former Inspectors General of Police β€” Pujith Jayasundara, C.D. Wickramaratne and Deshabandu Tennakoon.

That window is what gives the ruling its weight. A single judgment has now disposed of challenges spanning four years and three IGP administrations, covering the ranks through which most officers actually advance.

Three separate promotion cases, easily confused

This is the third distinct Supreme Court matter on police promotions to surface within a month, and they are not the same case.

On 9 September the court voided special promotions granted in 2010 to three Chief Inspectors elevated to Assistant Superintendent of Police, holding the Cabinet decisions unlawful under Article 12(1) β€” a case that had run sixteen years. Separately, the court has ruled lawful a single promotion of a sergeant to sub-inspector challenged by 71 petitioners.

Today’s ruling is the largest of the three and went the other way from the 2010 case: the challenges failed. The discriminators are the petition count, the years at issue and the outcome β€” 33 Chief Inspectors and 2010 promotions voided; 71 petitions and one promotion upheld; 40 petitions, ~1,050 officers and 2019–2023 promotions dismissed.

Not reported

NewsFirst does not name the bench, give the date of the judgment, or say whether the petitions were consolidated and heard together. It does not state how many promotions were at stake in total, what proportion of the affected officers the 1,050 petitioners represent, or what specific irregularities were alleged and found wanting. Nor does it indicate whether any avenue of review remains open to the officers.


Source