Sri Lanka's Supreme Court Rejects Petitions Against Indo-Lanka MoUs

COLOMBO (News 1st); Sri Lanka's The Supreme Court on Monday (4) dismissed two fundamental rights petitions filed seeking orders to nullify seven Indo-Sri Lanka Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) signed on April 5, without proceeding to a formal hearing.

After a detailed review, the Court ruled that the petitions lacked sufficient grounds to warrant further judicial consideration.

The petitions were heard before Justices Achala Wengappuli and Priyantha Fernando.

They were filed by Dr. Gunadasa Amarasekara and others, naming the Attorney General, Prime Minister, and Cabinet as respondents.

Deputy Solicitor General Nirmalan Wigneswaran, appearing for the Attorney General, raised preliminary objections, stating that the petitions did not meet the threshold for judicial review.

President’s Counsel Manohara de Silva, representing the petitioners, argued that the seven MoUs signed between the Sri Lankan and Indian governments were being challenged through the case.

He noted that the government had refused to disclose details of two of the agreements, citing national security and potential harm to bilateral relations.

He further stated that the Indian government had requested non-disclosure of the agreements, and that the refusal to reveal such information constituted a violation of public sovereignty under the Constitution.

Attorney-at-law Kanishka Vitharana, appearing for the Vinivida Peramuna, argued that the refusal to disclose the contents of the agreements infringed upon the fundamental rights of the public.

Despite a request made under the Right to Information Act, the Presidential Secretariat responded that the President had not signed the agreements and therefore copies were unavailable, said the attorney-at-law.

Deputy Solicitor General Nirmalan Wigneswaran countered that Cabinet approval is the standard procedure for such MoUs, and that ministers—being Members of Parliament—are informed of the contents.

He also argued that the claim regarding lack of parliamentary approval was baseless, stating that under Article 157 of the Constitution, only agreements related to foreign investments and double taxation require parliamentary submission. The MoUs in question did not fall under this category.

He added that while the President is accountable to Parliament under Article 42, there is no constitutional requirement to present all information received by the President to Parliament.

If Parliament wishes to obtain details of any agreement, it has the authority to summon such information, but no such action had been taken in this instance.

Given the lack of sufficient legal basis to proceed, Deputy Solicitor General Nirmalan Wigneswaran requested the Court to dismiss the petitions without hearing.

After considering arguments from both sides, the Supreme Court ruled to reject the petitions without proceeding to trial.