A news item that makes media bytes 'empty'...
The latest "news item" on social media right now is the case filed by a senior police officer of the police department against his wife under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Since many people are not aware of the provisions of this act, some are publishing various information about the case in the media and discussing it on YouTube. The irony here is that several people who claim to be media stars have also revealed information about the case.
This reveals that these media stars do not know a thing about the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, No. 34, 2005, and the provisions contained therein.
What has surprised them is that this case has been filed against a senior police officer in the country. Some people are revealing information about this case, including a photo of the senior police officer in uniform. All of these people do not know the seriousness of the mistake they are making. But they should also know that ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
Section 2 (1) of this Act, known as the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act No. 34 of 2005, states that any person who has committed or is likely to commit domestic violence (hereinafter referred to as the aggrieved person) may apply to the Magistrate’s Court for a protection order to prevent domestic violence.
A request under sub-section (2)(1) may be made
(a) by an aggrieved person
(b) in the case of a child, on behalf of the child
(i) by one of the parents of the child or by a guardian of the child
(ii) by a person resident in the place where the child resides
(iii) by a person authorized in writing by the National Child Protection Authority established under the National Child Protection Authority Act, No. 50 of 1998
(c) by a police officer on behalf of the aggrieved person.
Section 20 of this Act also operates to protect the dignity of victims of domestic violence by not disclosing their personal information. Section 20 provides that any person who prints or publishes any matter relating to a legal proceeding pending in any court under this Act, other than (a) the name of the applicant or respondent or any other matter by which the identity of the applicant or respondent in a request under this Act can be ascertained, (b) a judgment of the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine.
Lakshan Dias, a well-known lawyer in the field of human rights, has stated on his Facebook account that a local newspaper was punished for allegedly violating Section 20 of this Act.
However, it appears that some who have reported information regarding the case filed by the senior police officer have also used this case to damage the official dignity of the relevant senior police officer.
However, if this senior police officer requests the court to protect his honor in this regard, it is certain that the group who reported the relevant information will be able to eat a good "puddy".
That is all we have to write.
D. Liyanarachchi ✍️
