In a landmark decision that continues to reverberate through Sri Lanka’s legal and political arenas, the Supreme Court recently ruled that the emergency regulations declared by then-Acting President Ranil Wickremesinghe on July 17, 2022, were unconstitutional. However, dissenting Justice Arjuna Obeysekere argued otherwise, stating the regulations were not arbitrary given the volatile conditions at the time, even though no prosecutions resulted and the regulations expired in 30 days.
Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena made a bombshell revelation in Parliament: foreign powers had urged him to assume the executive presidency at the height of the Aragalaya protests. He claimed the real objective behind these requests was to plunge Sri Lanka into a chaotic scenario akin to Libya or Afghanistan, and not to stabilize governance. Despite intense local and international pressure, he said he refused the offer to protect democracy. Ironically, some who once encouraged him to seize power later signed a no-confidence motion against him.
Justice Obeysekere’s dissenting view referenced paragraph 47 of the majority opinion, acknowledging that serious threats to national security existed when President Wickremesinghe proclaimed the emergency. He pointed to the July 13 attempt to storm Parliament, which endangered the July 20 scheduled vote to elect a new President under Article 40(1)(C). Even the majority conceded that Wickremesinghe faced a deteriorating law and order situation when he acted.
According to Justice Obeysekere, once the President is convinced of a public emergency, he has the right to proclaim it under Section 1 of the Public Security Ordinance. He emphasized there was no requirement to weigh one part of the Ordinance against another. Concluding his reasoning, Obeysekere ruled that no fundamental rights under Article 12(1) were violated and dismissed all petitions without cost.
Justice Yasantha Kodagoda, however, drew a vastly different conclusion in the section titled “Conclusions reached by Court regarding the factual scenario.” He characterized the Aragalaya-related events as unprecedented in Sri Lankan history. Kodagoda acknowledged that while various factors could be debated—from foreign involvement to legal justifications—the events had become entrenched in the country’s modern historical record.
Justice Obeysekere outright rejected the majority’s conclusion that the emergency declaration was arbitrary, abusive, and unconstitutional. His legal reasoning and interpretation suggest that the state of affairs justified the proclamation. His dissent is essential reading for anyone trying to grasp the complex legal and political dimensions that led to President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s resignation and subsequent escape from Sri Lanka on July 13, 2022.
Obeysekere’s position also indirectly validated Speaker Abeywardena’s later revelation in March 2024, where he confirmed foreign intervention during Aragalaya—a claim that mirrored National Freedom Front (NFF) leader Wimal Weerawansa’s earlier allegations of U.S. involvement in the protests.
The petitioners challenged the use of Section 2 of the Public Security Ordinance of 1947 for imposing a nationwide emergency on July 17, followed by emergency regulations under Section 5 on July 18. Their argument: the conditions on the ground didn’t warrant such drastic executive action.
But during court proceedings, petitioners’ counsel conceded that on July 19, a mob forcibly entered and occupied the Prime Minister’s Office at Flower Road, Colombo 7. This admission complicated their case.
The respondents highlighted earlier acts of violence, such as the May 9 murder of MP Amarakeerthi Athukorale and his police bodyguard in Nittambuwa, and the attempt to seize Parliament on July 13. These incidents, they argued, were part of an orchestrated campaign to prevent the Presidential election, in which SLPP-backed Wickremesinghe, SJB-supported Dullas Alahapperuma, and NPP’s Anura Kumara Dissanayake were contenders.
While the judgment made no mention of the JVP/NPP, their role in the July 13 attempt to surround Parliament is widely recognized.
Security personnel faced significant resistance before regaining control. Protesters even seized two T-56 assault rifles, magazines, and ammunition. Multiple officers sustained injuries.
President Wickremesinghe’s decision to declare a state of emergency on July 17 was reportedly based on advice from the Inspector General of Police, the Defence Secretary, and the Public Security Minister. Almost a dozen petitions challenged this declaration. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled Wickremesinghe had acted unconstitutionally and directed the Attorney General to prepare a detailed legal advisory for future executive guidance.
Justice Kodagoda went further, declaring the emergency declaration and related regulations as “a nullity” having “never had the recognition of the law.” The court mandated that the advisory be submitted within three months and archived.
Outgoing Chief Justice Murdu Fernando concurred—her final ruling before retirement. Only Justice Obeysekere dissented.
The petitioners included notable figures like former Human Rights Commissioner Ambika Sathkunanathan, attorney Namini Panditha, the Liberal Youth Movement, Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) Executive Director Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, attorney Atham Lebbe Aazath, law student Laxmanan Sanjeev, and Law and Society Trust’s Head of Programmes Sandun Thudugala.
Since Wickremesinghe was President when petitions were filed, the Attorney General was named the respondent under Article 35(1) of the Constitution.
SLPP’s endorsement of Wickremesinghe over their own Dullas Alahapperuma fractured the party. Gotabaya Rajapaksa later justified the decision in his publication “Conspiracy to oust me from the presidency,” asserting that only Wickremesinghe could have managed the chaos.
From dominating Parliament with 145 members, the SLPP now holds just three seats. Namal Rajapaksa’s reliance on a National List seat underscores the party’s dramatic fall. Wickremesinghe, backed by SLPP, knew consolidating authority required evicting protesters. Though many expected Aragalaya to fade after he became Prime Minister, it didn’t. Once President, he acted swiftly.
On July 21, troops, under presidential orders, cleared Galle Face. The same activists who once vowed to die for a system change vanished overnight. Wickremesinghe had full SLPP backing and showed resolve.
The U.S., U.K., and Canada criticized his actions. Still, Wickremesinghe leveraged the crisis to revive the UNP, which had only one National List MP.
His political transformation was stark. From supporting the “Gota Go Home” campaign to leading an SLPP-led government, Wickremesinghe pursued the presidency with laser focus. The May 9 Temple Trees attack had given Aragalaya moral ammunition to unleash nationwide violence. The Rajapaksa government, caught off guard, collapsed swiftly.
Former Senior DIG Merril Gunaratne had warned of such an uprising. On April 21, 2022, he urged the police to prepare for large-scale political unrest. Yet, the government failed to act decisively.
The July 9 arson attack on Wickremesinghe’s private residence in Kollupitiya possibly shaped his iron-fisted approach as President.
The petitioners also asked the court to compel the Cabinet and other authorities to collaborate with experts and stakeholders to stabilize the economy and ensure access to essentials like gas, electricity, fuel, and medicines.
Initially, the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) led the charge against the government. On March 25, 2022, they filed two petitions urging Gotabaya Rajapaksa to resign. Aragalaya formally began days later with a protest near the President’s residence in Mirihana on March 31, 2022.
That night, organized mobs overwhelmed police and military personnel. It marked the beginning of a protest movement driven by economic despair and foreign interference, notably due to the Rajapaksas’ ties with China.
BASL leaders—Saliya Pieris PC, Anura Meddegoda PC, Rajeev Amarasuriya, Rajindh Perera, and Pasindu Silva—filed the petitions. Their legal team included Dr. K. Kanag-Isvaran PC, Uditha Egalahewa PC, Suren Gnanaraj, and Pulasthi Hewamanna.
Citing Articles 11, 12(1), 13(4), 14(1)(g), 14(1)(h), and 14A, they alleged the State’s inaction violated fundamental rights.
Although BASL amended petitions to include new ministers post-May 12, 2022, it later suspended further legal action in October 2022. President Pieris said, “It was laid by not withdrawn. It can be revived.”
That decision lessened pressure on Wickremesinghe. But the legal and political fallout from Aragalaya’s suppression and the Supreme Court ruling will continue to haunt Sri Lanka for years to come.
