The Hon. Speaker

¶ 01 ANNOUNCEMENTS

¶ 02 Institute of Real Estate Professionals, Sri Lanka Bill: Determination of the Supreme Court

¶ 03 I wish to inform Parliament that I have received the Determination of the Supreme Court in respect of the Bill titled “Institute of Real Estate Professionals, Sri Lanka”, which had been challenged in the Supreme Court under Article 121(1) of the Constitution.

¶ 04 The Supreme Court has determined that the Bill, as a whole or any provision thereof, is not inconsistent with the Constitution and may be passed by the simple majority of Parliament.

¶ 05 I order that the Determination of the Supreme Court be printed in the Official Report of today's Proceedings.

¶ 06 Determination of the Supreme Court: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA

¶ 07 “INSTITUTE OF REAL ESTATE PROFESSIONALS BILL” SC (SD) No. 30/2025 Petitioners: 1. The Institute of Valuers of Sri Lanka 2. Dr. J.N. Hettiarachchi, President, Institute of Valuers of Sri Lanka 3. A.P.W. Manamperi, Honourary General Secretary, Institute of Valuers of Sri Lanka Counsel: Rajeev Amarasuriya with Yohani Yogarajah and Subani Hewapathirana

¶ 08 SC (SD) No. 31/2025 Petitioner: The Institute of Valuers of Sri Lanka Counsel: Rasika Dissanayake with Shabeer Hussain

¶ 09 Intervenient Petitioner: Institute of Real Estate and Valuation Counsel: Harith De Mel with Vihitha Lekamge

¶ 10 Respondents: Hon. Bimal Ratnayake, Minister of Transport, Highways and Urban Development Hon. Attorney General Counsel: Manohara Jayasinghe, Deputy Solicitor General with Medhaka Fernando, State Counsel

¶ 11 BEFORE: Arjuna Obeyesekere, Judge of the Supreme Court Priyantha Fernando, Judge of the Supreme Court Menaka Wijesundera, Judge of the Supreme Court

¶ 12 [1] The Court assembled for hearing at 10.00 am on 19 December 2025.

¶ 13 [2] A Bill in its long title referred to as “An Act to provide for the establishment of the Institute of Real Estate Professionals, Sri Lanka which shall be responsible for the maintenance of professional standards and discipline of members of the institute; for the protection and promotion of the interest of the public in relation to the profession of real estate; and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.”, and in its short title referred to as the “Institute of Real Estate Professionals, Sri Lanka” (the Bill) was published as a Supplement in Part II of the Government Gazette of 26 September 2025. It was presented in Parliament by the Hon. Minister of Transport, Highways and Urban Development and was placed on the Order Paper of Parliament of 5 December 2025.

¶ 14 [3]–[5] Three Petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 121(1) on 18 December 2025, seeking a determination that the Bill in its entirety, and in particular Clause 3, violates Articles 3, 4, 12(1), 12(2), 13(6), 14(1)(g) and 83 of the Constitution, and that the Bill requires a special majority and approval by the People at a Referendum. Notice was issued on the Attorney General under Article 134(1). The Court heard extensive submissions from learned Counsel for the Petitioners, the learned Counsel for the Intervenient-Petitioner, and the learned Deputy Solicitor General, and afforded an opportunity to file written submissions.

¶ 15 Jurisdiction of Court

¶ 16 [6] The Court exercises jurisdiction under Article 120 to determine whether the Bill or any of its provisions is inconsistent with the Constitution. Article 123(1) requires reasons and the identification of any inconsistency, and Article 123(2) sets out consequential determinations.

¶ 17 [7] Under Article 83, the requirement of both a special majority and a Referendum arises only where the Bill seeks to amend, repeal or replace Articles 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 30(2), 62(2) or 83.

¶ 18 The Bill

¶ 19 [8] The Preamble records that a company named “Institute of Real Estate and Valuation” had been registered under the Companies Act, No. 7 of 2007, and thereafter sought establishment as an institute by Act of Parliament, for which Cabinet approval was granted on 23 October 2023.

¶ 20 [9] The Bill contains 31 clauses: Clause 2 establishes the Institute of Real Estate Professionals, Sri Lanka (the Institute) as a body corporate; Clauses 3–4 set out objects and powers; Clauses 5–8 and 10 address membership categories, qualifications, tenure, disqualification, suspension, and a register. Clause 9 entitles corporate members to use FIREPSL (Fellow) or MIREPSL (Member). Clauses 11–19 establish the Council. Clauses 20–25 provide for seal, meetings, Fund, staff and audit. Clause 26 deems the Institute a scheduled institution under the Anti-Corruption Act, No. 9 of 2023; Clause 27 provides for a Code of Professional Conduct; Clause 28 for Rules; Clause 29 for transitional provisions.

¶ 21 [10] The Bill’s purpose is to incorporate an existing company and enable qualified persons in real estate to be members of a legislatively recognised body and use titles under Clause 9. The Bill does not confer exclusive status over real estate professionals, nor regulatory or licensing powers.

¶ 22 The Petitioners and their regulatory role

¶ 23 [11] The 1st–3rd Petitioners in SC (SD) 30/2025 are the Institute of Valuers of Sri Lanka (IVSL), established by Law No. 33 of 1975 as amended by Act No. 9 of 2019 (the IV Law), its President, and its Honourary General Secretary. The IVSL is also Petitioner in SC (SD) 31/2025.

¶ 24 [12]–[16] Petitioners contended that the IVSL promotes the study of valuation and regulates conduct of valuers to ensure high standards, and is the sole apex body regulating valuation practice; that the Bill’s objects in Clause 3(b)(i), 3(b)(iii), 3(b)(v), 3(h), and 3(j) enable “appraisal” amounting to valuation, encroaching on IVSL’s role and violating Articles 12(1) and 14(1)(g). The Hansard of 3 July 1975 (during the Institute of Valuers Bill) records Hon. Dr. N.M. Perera and Hon. Bernard Soysa clarifying that membership in the institute is not mandatory to practice as a valuer.

¶ 25 [17] The legislature did not intend a licensing or regulatory authority for valuers. While Section 4(i) of the IV Law speaks to regulating conduct to ensure standards, the IV Law contains no licensing or mandatory registration, and does not bring all valuers within IVSL’s framework.

¶ 26 [18] By contrast, other professions are regulated/licensed, e.g.: [a] Engineering Council of Sri Lanka Act, No. 4 of 2017 (Sections 12, 14 with offences for unregistered practice) [b] Medical Ordinance No. 26 of 1927 (Sections 20, 29, 38 on registration and prohibition) [c] Institute of Architects Law, No. 1 of 1976 (Sections 4A, 8E on registration and titles) [d] Survey Act, No. 17 of 2002 (Section 37 on registration, annual licences and standards).

¶ 27 [19] The IVSL is a professional body of qualified valuers; it is not a regulatory or licensing body, notwithstanding limited state involvement under the IV Law.

¶ 28 The policy objective of the Cabinet of Ministers

¶ 29 [20] Petitioners’ second argument: Cabinet policy was that the Institute’s powers should not overlap IVSL’s and valuation should be kept out of the Institute’s objects, but the Bill’s “appraisal” object enables members to engage in valuation, making the Bill arbitrary and violative of Article 12(1).

¶ 30 [21] This concern is reflected in the Minister of Finance’s observations (15 May 2017), the Cabinet Memorandum of 5 October 2023, the Minister of Justice’s observations thereon, the Cabinet Memorandum of 8 July 2025, and related Cabinet decisions. Cabinet intended to limit the Institute’s activities to the real estate industry.

¶ 31 [22] Petitioners cited objects allowing “appraisal”:

¶ 32 Clause 3(b): “To promote and develop the principles, techniques, standards and practices relating to real estate industry in Sri Lanka including— (i) all businesses related to real estate planning, investment, development, management, supervision, monitoring, appraisal and evaluation of real estate projects… (iii) providing professional opinion and advisory services… when such a service on real estate planning, investment, development, asset management and appraisal of all types of landed property, fixtures, fittings, equipment, plant and machinery and interests therein are required… (v) subject to applicable written law, appraisal of environmental impact, water and air rights, mines and minerals, biological assets and heritage properties from real estate planning and development point of view;”

¶ 33 Clause 3(h): “To conduct examinations qualifying for membership of the Institute to assess the competence of persons engaged in matters, activities and practices related to real estate and its appraisals… and to award certificates of competences,”

¶ 34 Clause 3(j): “To offer capacity building facilities… on real estate development, management and appraisal.”

¶ 35 [23] Although the Bill does not use the word “valuation”, “appraisal” includes valuation, as accepted by the Deputy Solicitor General and Counsel for the Intervenient Petitioner.

¶ 36 [24] However, having “appraisal” as an object does not by itself enable members to practice appraisal. The issue is whether the Bill confers a right to practice, contrary to Cabinet policy.

¶ 37 [25] The IV Law defines “practice as a valuer” (Section 25) as engaging in valuation for remuneration; rendering professional services on valuation matters; certifying valuation reports; or other prescribed services.

¶ 38 [26]–[28] Membership categories (Corporate: Fellow, Member; Non-Corporate: Associate, Student, Honorary) and qualifications are in the Schedule. The Bill is silent on powers or practice areas per category; only Associates, Members and Fellows have academic qualifications in estate management and valuation.

¶ 39 [29] The Bill creates a professional body and confers only the use of titles (FIREPSL/MIREPSL). The profession of valuers is not regulated like surveyors, engineers, architects or medical practitioners. While the objects may appear to stretch policy, members are not conferred a right to practice valuation by virtue of membership; thus the Bill aligns with Cabinet’s objective.

¶ 40 Conclusion

¶ 41 [30] The Bill as a whole or any provision thereof is not inconsistent with the Constitution and may be passed by a simple majority of Parliament.

¶ 42 [31] The Court appreciates the assistance of Counsel.

¶ 43 Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere Judge of the Supreme Court

¶ 44 Justice Priyantha Fernando Judge of the Supreme Court

¶ 45 Justice Menaka Wijesundera Judge of the Supreme Court