The Supreme Court has found that the fundamental rights of Ravi Seneviratne and Shani Abeysekara were violated during an investigation arising from allegations connected to the 2019 Easter Sunday attacks. But the judgment is about a later police investigation — not a finding on who was responsible for the attacks themselves.
The Easter Sunday attacks have produced more than one major Supreme Court case.
The first was about what happened before the bombs exploded in April 2019 — intelligence warnings, the failure to act and the responsibilities of senior officials.
The judgment delivered on September 15, 2026 is about something different.
It concerns what happened years later, when allegations were made against two senior police officers and a new investigation was launched during the 2024 presidential election period.
The Supreme Court has now ruled that the fundamental rights of Ravi Seneviratne and Shani Abeysekara were violated in that process.
It also found that the complaint which triggered the investigation had been made with a political motive.
That is the part of the judgment that has immediately attracted attention.
But there is an important line that should not be crossed when reading it.
The Court was not deciding, in this case, who was responsible for the Easter Sunday attacks.
So what actually happened?
The case arose from a complaint made by then Deputy Inspector General of Police Palitha Siriwardena concerning Ravi Seneviratne and Shani Abeysekara.
The complaint alleged that the two officers had failed to properly act on information relating to the Easter Sunday attacks.
Seneviratne and Abeysekara rejected the allegations and went to the Supreme Court seeking protection from arrest and detention in connection with the investigation.
Their argument was that the complaint was politically motivated and that the subsequent investigation exposed them to an unlawful deprivation of their fundamental rights.
The case was therefore not simply about an allegation concerning Easter Sunday. It became a constitutional case about how the State used its investigative powers against two people who were facing those allegations.
How the case got here
Easter Sunday bombings kill and injure hundreds of people at churches and hotels across Sri Lanka. Subsequent investigations focus on intelligence warnings and whether authorities acted on information available before the attacks.
A group of retired police officers becomes involved in political activity ahead of the 2024 presidential election. Seneviratne and Abeysekara are among officers associated with a retired police collective supporting the National People’s Power.
Palitha Siriwardena makes the complaint that eventually becomes the basis for the investigation into Seneviratne and Abeysekara.
Police investigations move forward. Seneviratne and Abeysekara approach the Supreme Court, arguing that the investigation threatens their fundamental rights and creates a risk of arrest.
The Supreme Court delivers its judgment and finds that the fundamental rights of the two petitioners were violated.
What did the Supreme Court find?
The judgment was delivered by Justice Gihan Kulatunga, with Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena and Justice Achala Wengappuli concurring.
The Court found that former DIG Palitha Siriwardena had acted with a political motive when making the complaint.
It also found that the investigation that followed resulted in violations of the fundamental rights of Seneviratne and Abeysekara.
Former IGP Deshabandu Tennakoon and former CID Chief Inspector Induka Silva were among those whose conduct was examined by the Court.
Reporting on the judgment says the Court placed particular emphasis on the circumstances and timing of the complaint, the political context in which it was made and the speed with which police action followed.
Newswire’s account of the judgment reports that the Court found the complaint and subsequent conduct demonstrated a coordinated political campaign and that the police response showed what the Court described as unusual speed and interest.
That is a finding of the Court in this case and should not be confused with a general conclusion about every investigation connected to Easter Sunday.
What did the Court order?
The Court ordered former DIG Palitha Siriwardena to pay Rs.50,000 each to Ravi Seneviratne and Shani Abeysekara.
Former CID Chief Inspector Induka Silva was ordered to pay Rs.10,000 each to the two petitioners.
The Court also ordered that the two petitioners should not be arrested and that no further investigation should be conducted against them in relation to the particular complaint at the centre of the case.
Why did the political context matter?
This is one of the most important parts of the judgment.
The Supreme Court considered the political circumstances surrounding the people involved.
Seneviratne and Abeysekara had been associated with a retired police officers’ group that was publicly supporting the National People’s Power ahead of the 2024 presidential election.
A public meeting involving the group was held in Maharagama in June 2024.
Shortly afterwards, Siriwardena and another retired police officer held a media briefing criticising the two petitioners. The complaint to the police followed days later.
According to reporting on the judgment, the Court considered the timing, circumstances and surrounding political activity when determining the motive behind the complaint.
The Court rejected the suggestion that the complaint was simply made in the public interest and found that political considerations were involved.
That finding is particularly significant because the complaint concerned one of the most sensitive criminal investigations in Sri Lanka’s recent history.
Then came the police investigation
The Supreme Court also examined what happened after the complaint was made.
According to the judgment as reported by Newswire, the complaint was lodged on June 24, 2024 and reached the CID within days.
Statements were subsequently recorded from Siriwardena and several other police officers, while CID documents and information books were taken into custody.
The Court was critical of what it regarded as the speed and manner of the police response when viewed alongside the surrounding political circumstances.
That does not mean that a fast police investigation is automatically unlawful.
The significance here is the combination of factors the Court considered: the complaint, its political context, the conduct of those involved and the manner in which the investigation was pursued.
One distinction matters more than anything else
This judgment does not establish that Ravi Seneviratne or Shani Abeysekara were responsible for the Easter Sunday attacks.
Nor does it erase the separate findings made by the Supreme Court in January 2023 concerning the failure of senior state officials to act on intelligence before the attacks.
The latest case examined the legality of a particular complaint and investigation made years after the attacks.
In other words, there are two separate questions:
- What did state officials do — or fail to do — before the Easter Sunday attacks?
- Was the later investigation into Seneviratne and Abeysekara conducted lawfully?
The Supreme Court has made significant findings on both questions in separate proceedings.
The earlier Easter Sunday judgment was about something else
On January 12, 2023, a seven-member Supreme Court bench ruled on a series of fundamental-rights petitions brought after the Easter Sunday attacks.
That case examined whether senior state officials had failed in their constitutional duties despite receiving information about a possible attack.
The Court found that former President Maithripala Sirisena, former Defence Secretary Hemasiri Fernando, former IGP Pujith Jayasundara, former Chief of National Intelligence Sisira Mendis and former State Intelligence Service Director Nilantha Jayawardena had violated the fundamental rights of the petitioners through failures connected to the attacks.
The Court ordered personal compensation from those officials totalling Rs.310 million, while the State was ordered to pay a further Rs.1 million.
A victim fund was subsequently established through the Office for Reparations.
The Supreme Court’s official judgment records the cases covering the aftermath of the April 21, 2019 attacks and the allegations concerning failures to respond to intelligence information.
The two judgments therefore deal with different stages of the Easter Sunday story.
Two Supreme Court cases. Two very different questions.
| 2023 Easter Sunday case | 2026 Ravi–Shani case |
|---|---|
| Examined failures before the 2019 attacks | Examined a later investigation connected to allegations about the attacks |
| Focused on intelligence warnings and failures to act | Focused on the complaint, investigation and fundamental rights |
| Seven-judge bench | Three-judge bench |
| Compensation was directed to victims through a dedicated fund | Compensation was ordered to the two petitioners |
Why this judgment matters beyond these two officers
The most important issue may not be the amount of compensation.
It is the Court’s treatment of investigative power.
Police investigations are supposed to be capable of following evidence wherever it leads. That requires investigators to be able to investigate allegations, including serious allegations involving senior officials.
But the same power can become constitutionally problematic if an investigation is used for an improper purpose.
The Supreme Court’s latest judgment is therefore a reminder that the existence of a serious allegation does not automatically make every subsequent police action lawful.
The circumstances in which the allegation is made, the people involved and the manner in which investigators act can all become relevant when fundamental rights are at stake.
And the Easter Sunday investigation itself is not over
This is another reason not to read the judgment as the final chapter of the Easter Sunday story.
Other investigations connected to the attacks have continued.
For example, former State Intelligence Service chief Suresh Sallay has remained at the centre of a separate investigation, while the courts have continued to deal with issues surrounding suspects and evidence.
Those proceedings are separate from the complaint examined in this Supreme Court fundamental-rights case.
One judgment therefore should not be used to describe the status of every Easter Sunday investigation currently before the authorities.
What this judgment does not say
- It does not determine who organised the 2019 Easter Sunday attacks.
- It does not overturn the Supreme Court’s 2023 findings concerning failures by senior officials before the attacks.
- It does not establish that every Easter Sunday investigation was politically motivated.
- It does not mean that police cannot investigate allegations against senior officials.
- It concerns a specific complaint and the investigation arising from that complaint.
The question Sri Lanka is left with
The Easter Sunday attacks remain one of the most consequential failures in Sri Lanka’s recent security history.
The country still wants answers about what was known before the attacks, who received the warnings, why action was delayed and whether the full network behind the attacks has been uncovered.
But the Supreme Court’s latest ruling adds another question to that list.
When the State investigates the people responsible for investigating the State, who makes sure the investigation itself remains lawful?
The Court has not closed the Easter Sunday story. It has added another layer to it.
There is a natural temptation to read every new Easter Sunday development as another attempt to answer the same question: who is responsible?
This judgment is different.
It is about the State’s power to investigate — and the constitutional limits on how that power can be used.
That distinction may sound technical. It is not.
Sri Lanka cannot properly investigate the country’s biggest security failures without strong investigative powers. At the same time, those powers cannot be allowed to become instruments for political retaliation.
The Supreme Court has now placed a judicial finding on one particular investigation.
The larger Easter Sunday questions remain.
Read more from Lakbima News
- Court orders health report on Suresh Sallay — the separate Easter Sunday investigation involving the former intelligence chief.
- Sri Lanka Supreme Court Limits Presidential Pardon Power — another recent Supreme Court ruling examining the constitutional limits of executive power.
- 22A hearings conclude; SC decision to be sent to Speaker — Lakbima’s coverage of another recent constitutional dispute before the Supreme Court.
Editorial note
This article distinguishes between findings made by the Supreme Court and allegations made during the underlying proceedings. The September 15, 2026 judgment concerns a specific complaint and investigation involving Ravi Seneviratne and Shani Abeysekara. It should not be read as a determination of responsibility for the 2019 Easter Sunday attacks themselves.
Sources
- News 1st — Supreme Court Awards Compensation to Ravi and Shani
- Newswire — Supreme Court details political motive and investigation
- Ada Derana — Supreme Court ruling on Ravi Seneviratne and Shani Abeysekara
- Supreme Court of Sri Lanka — 2019 Easter Sunday Fundamental Rights judgment
- Office for Reparations — Annual Report 2023
