The Supreme Court has granted time for the Attorney General to seek Cabinet advice before responding to a petition challenging Sri Lanka–India MoUs. The court will reconvene on August 4 to determine the facts.
In a closely watched legal challenge, the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka has granted the Attorney General two weeks to consult with the Cabinet and file objections in a fundamental rights petition seeking to nullify key Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) signed between Sri Lanka and India.
The case was heard today, June 16, before a bench comprising Justices S. Thurairajah, Menaka Wijesundara, and Priyantha Fernando. Deputy Solicitor General Nirmalan Wigneswaran, appearing on behalf of the Attorney General, requested time to gather Cabinet input before submitting arguments. The court approved the request and instructed the respondents to file their objections by the given deadline. Petitioners will also have the opportunity to respond.
The case has been fixed for further hearing and fact determination on August 4.
The petition, filed by Dr. Gunadasa Amarasekara and others, names the Attorney General, Prime Minister Harini Amarasuriya, and the Cabinet as respondents. The petitioners argue that the MoUs signed with India are unconstitutional and violate both Sri Lankan law and international norms.
They claim the government failed to inform the public about the contents of the agreements, thereby breaching citizens’ fundamental rights to information and transparency. More seriously, the petition contends that the agreements compromise Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, as they were signed without parliamentary approval or public debate.
In their plea, the petitioners have requested the Supreme Court to:
- Declare that their fundamental rights have been violated,
- Issue interim injunctions preventing the implementation of the MoUs,
- And order Rs. 2 million in compensation from the respondents for the alleged rights violations.
This petition comes amid growing public scrutiny over foreign agreements made behind closed doors, especially those involving strategic sectors. The final court ruling could set a precedent for future diplomatic engagements and accountability standards in Sri Lanka.
About the Author
