Determinations of the Supreme Court

¶ 01 In the Supreme Court of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka

¶ 02 In the matter of an application under and in terms of Article 121 read with Article 120 of the Constitution to determine whether the Bill titled “Presidents’ Entitlements (Repeal)” or any part thereof is inconsistent with the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

¶ 03 SC/SD/29/2025 Petitioner: Herath Mudiyanselage Priyantha Herath, No. 171/D, Second Lane, Maligagodella, Udumulla, Mulleriyawa. Counsel: Sumith Senanayake PC, with Ms. Nisali Balachandra, instructed by Ms. Kavindi Kodithuwakku. Respondent: Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Counsel: Viraj Dayaratne PC, Solicitor General, with Ms. Yuresha De Silva DSG, Rajitha Perera DSG, Ms. Ishara Madarasinghe SC and Ms. Madusha Thanippuliarachchi SC, instructed by Ms. Nimalika Wickramasinghe SA. Before: J. Padman Surasena, CJ; Achala Wengappuli, J; Sampath B. Abayakoon, J.

¶ 04 The Bench assembled for hearing the Petition on 25 August 2025.

¶ 05 The Bill titled “Presidents’ Entitlements (Repeal) Act, No. … of 2025” was published in the Gazette on 31 July 2025 and was placed on the Order Paper of Parliament on 07 August 2025.

¶ 06 The Petitioner filed the Petition dated 21 August 2025 under Article 120 read with Article 121(1) of the Constitution and prayed for a determination under Article 123.

¶ 07 At the commencement of the hearing, the learned Solicitor General raised a preliminary objection that the Petition should be rejected in limine for non-compliance with the mandatory procedure in Article 121(1) of the Constitution, as a copy of the Petition had not been delivered to the Hon. Speaker at the same time as filing in Court.

¶ 08 The Bill was placed on the Order Paper on 07 August 2025. The Petition was filed in the registry on 21 August 2025 with a courier receipt showing a copy was handed over on 20 August 2025 for delivery to the Hon. Speaker. However, it was received by the Hon. Speaker on 22 August 2025.

¶ 09 Article 121(1) requires filing within fourteen days of placement on the Order Paper and delivery of a copy to the Speaker at the same time. The Court reiterated that these requirements are mandatory and must be strictly complied with. As the copy to the Speaker was received on 22 August 2025, outside the fourteen-day period ending 21 August 2025, the Court upheld the preliminary objection, following prior Special Determinations including Telecommunications Bill and others interpreting “delivered to the Speaker” to mean “handed over to the Speaker.”

¶ 10 Accordingly, the Petition was rejected for non-compliance with Article 121(1).

¶ 11 Chief Justice J. Padman Surasena Judge of the Supreme Court Achala Wengappuli Judge of the Supreme Court Sampath B. Abayakoon

¶ 12 In the Supreme Court of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka

¶ 13 “Presidents’ Entitlements (Repeal) Bill”

¶ 14 SC/SD/23/2025 – Petitioner: Wahalathanthrige Renuka Dushyartha Perera, No. 365, Nagahawela Road, Kotikawatta, Angoda. Counsel: N.K. Ashokbharan, instructed by Ms. Niluka Welgama. SC/SD/24/2025 – Petitioner: Ranasinghe Mudiyanselage Don Harindra Rathnapala Banagala, 11/1A, Jethawanawatta, Udugama, Essella, Veyangoda. Counsel: Eraj De Silva PC, with Daminda Wijayaratne, Janagan Sundramoorthy, Zul Luthufi, Naveed Ahmed, Tharini Ratwatte, Parami Gunawardana, instructed by Vidanapathirana Associates. SC/SD/25/2025 – Petitioner: Premasiri Piyaratne Wijayasekara, No. 129/6, Hiripitiya, Pannipitiya. Counsel: Eraj De Silva PC, with team as above, instructed by Vidanapathirana Associates. SC/SD/26/2025 – Petitioner: Mahinda Pathirana, University of Sabaragamuwa Sri Lanka, Belihuloya. Counsel: Saman Galappaththi with Isuru Perera, instructed by Anuradha Senarath Weragoda. SC/SD/27/2025 – Petitioner: Dampella Gamage Ravindra Manoj Kumar, No. 12/2, Bishop Terrace, Lakshapathiya, Moratuwa. Counsel: Saman Galappaththi with Isuru Perera, instructed by Anuradha Senarath Weragoda. SC/SD/28/2025 – Petitioner: Hon. Sarath Weerawansa Wijewickrama, No. 62/10, Shanthi Lane, Udumulla Road, Battaramulla. Counsel: M.U.M. Ali Sabry PC, with Ruwantha Cooray, Naamiq Nafath, Ms. Shehani Alwis and Joshua Croos Moraes, instructed by Anuradha Senarath Weragoda. Respondent in all Petitions: Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12. Counsel: Viraj Dayaratne PC, Solicitor General, with Ms. Yuresha De Silva DSG, Rajitha Perera DSG, Ms. Ishara Madarasinghe SC and Ms. Madusha Thanippuliarachchi SC, instructed by Ms. Nimalika Wickramasinghe SA. Before: J. Padman Surasena, CJ; Achala Wengappuli, J; Sampath B. Abayakoon, J.

¶ 15 The Bench assembled on 25 August 2025. With concurrence of Counsel, Applications SC/SD/23–28/2025 were consolidated. The Court heard submissions of all Counsel for Petitioners and of the Solicitor General and concluded the hearing.

¶ 16 The Bill was gazetted on 31 July 2025 and placed on the Order Paper on 07 August 2025. The Bill has four clauses: - Clause 1 – Short title - Clause 2 – Repeal of the Act, No. 4 of 1986 - Clause 3 – Avoidance of doubt - Clause 4 – Sinhala text to prevail in case of inconsistency

¶ 17 Petitioners challenged the Bill as a whole, alleging inconsistency with Articles 1, 3, 4, 11, 12(1), 12(2), 14 and 36 and contending the Bill requires compliance with Article 83 (two-thirds majority and referendum).

¶ 18 The Court reproduced the clauses, including Clause 3 declaring that any residence, allowances, facilities and pension to widows provided under the repealed Act preceding commencement shall no longer be provided or paid on and after commencement.

¶ 19 Petitioners’ primary submission relied on Article 36 of the Constitution, arguing that Parliament enacted the Presidents’ Entitlements Act, No. 4 of 1986 as mandated by Article 36(2), and that any repeal inconsistent with Article 36(2) cannot have retrospective effect.

¶ 20 The Court found Article 36(2) clear: upon assumption of office, the President is entitled to salary and allowances and thereafter a pension as determined by Parliament; subsequent amendment, repeal or replacement inconsistent with this Article shall not operate retrospectively. The Court held: - Article 36(2) confers only salary, allowances and pension on the holder of office of President and protects only these from retrospective removal. - The 1986 Act, by its preamble and provisions, grants benefits to former Presidents and widows of former Presidents (residence or allowance, secretarial allowance, official transport and facilities, and widow’s pension). It does not create or confer pension entitlements on a sitting President under Article 36(2). - Therefore, Act No. 4 of 1986 is a stand-alone statute enacted eight years after the 1978 Constitution, introducing additional benefits not contemplated by the Constitution. - Prior case law (Senarath and Others v. Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga and Others [2007] 1 Sri LR 59 at 77) recognized the Act as a unique exception to equality before the law, granting entitlements only to former Presidents and their widows, to be strictly interpreted. SC/FR/449/2019 (29.02.2024) also held entitlements under the Act accrue only after a President retires.

¶ 21 Accordingly, repealing Act No. 4 of 1986 removes an exception to equality before the law and is not inconsistent with the Constitution, including Articles 3, 4, 10, 11 and 12. No provision of the Bill is inconsistent with the Constitution, and it may be enacted with a simple majority.

¶ 22 The Court recorded appreciation for assistance by Counsel and the Solicitor General.

¶ 23 J. Padman Surasena, Chief Justice Achala Wengappuli, Judge of the Supreme Court Sampath B. Abayakoon, Judge of the Supreme Court