The legal status of the lawyer who tore and chewed pages from the case file is completely revoked.

The Supreme Court yesterday (16) decided to completely revoke the legal practice of a female lawyer accused in connection with an incident where pages of a case file at the Kekirawa Magistrate's Court were torn and chewed. In addition, she was sentenced to a suspended prison term and a fine under the charge of contempt of court.

The Attorney General had filed charges with the Supreme Court alleging that she had seriously violated professional ethics by tearing and chewing two pages from a case file related to a case being heard at the Kekirawa Magistrate's Court on July 27, 2023, thereby destroying them. The court, which decided to hold an inquiry into the incident, also issued an interim injunction prohibiting her from practicing law until the completion of the relevant investigations.

Information revealed that the respondent had again engaged in legal practice, disregarding the interim injunction issued by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the Attorney General filed another charge sheet against her for contempt of court regarding the violation of the court order.

Initially, she had stated before the court that she was innocent regarding these charges. However, she later changed her mind and informed the court that she pleads guilty to all charges presented.

Accordingly, this final verdict was announced by Justice Yasantha Kodagoda with the concurrence of Supreme Court Justices Arjuna Obeyesekere and Priyantha Fernando. As the respondent's conduct severely violated the code of ethics for lawyers, the Registrar of the Supreme Court was ordered to remove her name from the roll of lawyers, and the Bar Association of Sri Lanka and the District Judge of Kekirawa were also informed of this.

Found guilty of contempt of court, she was sentenced to a one-year suspended prison term for five years and a fine of Rs. 25,000. The verdict also stated that failure to pay the fine would result in an additional six months of imprisonment. Furthermore, the three-member bench ordered the individual to appear before the Police Criminal and Fingerprint Division to provide fingerprints.