|
|
 |
 |
 |
| Tuesday, 20 May 2003 |
 |
|
 |
News | |
| News Business Features Editorial Security Politics World Letters Sports Obituaries
|
by Wasantha Ramanayake The author of "Mage Naduwa Ivarai", Sarath Wijesooriya, a lecturer of Colombo University filed a fundamental right application in the Supreme Court challenging the decision of the University Senate against the reprinting of the novel. Petitioner W.A.P. Sarath Wijesooriya of Mulleriyawa cited University of Colombo, its Vice Chancellor T. Hettiarachchi, Members of the University Senate, The Acting Registrar and the Attorney General as respondents. Petitioner, a lecturer at the Arts Faculty of the University claimed that he published the novel "Mage Naduwa Ivarai", a first person narrative of frustration and the agony of a person who had been a victim of a intrigue within the university system. The novel was based on his personal experience as a university lecturer. He claimed that the characters and incidents in the said novel were his own imaginations. Petitioner stated that aesthetic thoughts could not be devoid of the writer's personal experience, apprehension of the society and human beings. Great writers such as Maxim Gorky and R.K. Narayan in the two novels "Mother" and "English Teacher" respectively blended their apprehensions of society and human beings and their imaginations. His novels and short stories were no exceptions. He alleged that he received a letter on May 2, dated April 25 from the second respondent that the University Senate at its 246 meeting held on August 28, 2002 had decided petitioner should refrain from reprinting the said novel and going ahead with any other publication using its contents. Petitioner stated that Prof. Sarathchandra's "Heta Echchara Kaluwara Ne", Prof. A.V. Suraweera's "Atta Bindei Paya Burulen" and Prof. Miniwan P. Thilakarathne's "Kanden Landata" were all based on the university lives of the respective authors and A.V. Suraweera and Miniwan P. Thilakaratne in fact wrote the books while they were serving as university lecturers. He alleged that the decision of the respondents violated his right to the equal protection of law and freedom of speech and expression. Petitioner sought, among other matters, the suspension of the operation of the said decision, and a court declaration stating that it was null and void. He further sought compensation of one million rupees. |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
Produced by Lake House |
