The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka dismissed two high-profile petitions demanding the invalidation of seven controversial MoUs signed with India. Petitioners argued the deals violated constitutional transparency, bypassed Parliament, and threatened national sovereignty, yet the court found no legal grounds to proceed.
The Supreme Court on August 4 dismissed without hearing two Fundamental Rights petitions that sought to invalidate seven Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) signed between the Sri Lankan government and the Indian government.
The decision was delivered by Justices Achala Vengappuli and Priyantha Fernando, following lengthy deliberation on the admissibility of the claims made by petitioners, which included civil activist Dr. Gunadasa Amarasekara and the Gayana Peramuna.
During the hearing, Deputy Solicitor General Nirmalan Wigneswaran, representing the Attorney General, informed the court that he intended to file preliminary objections against the petitions. Meanwhile, President’s Counsel Manohara de Silva, speaking on behalf of the petitioners, raised serious concerns about the secrecy surrounding two of the MoUs. He stated that the government refused to disclose them, citing national security risks and Indian government requests for confidentiality.
De Silva argued that withholding such information was a blatant violation of public sovereignty, as protected under the Constitution. He further emphasized that these MoUs were signed either by the President or his delegates without prior approval from Parliament, an act he claimed violated Article 42, which binds the President to parliamentary accountability.
He stressed that international agreements should be subjected to parliamentary scrutiny, warning that bypassing such democratic processes could have adverse geopolitical consequences, including strained relations with neighboring countries like Pakistan.
Attorney Kanishka Vitarana, representing the Transparency Front, echoed these concerns. He revealed that under the Right to Information Act, requests were made for copies of the agreements, but the Presidential Secretariat denied possessing any such documents, stating that the President had not personally signed them.
In response, Deputy Solicitor General Wigneswaran argued that cabinet approval had been obtained in the usual manner and that Parliament, through its representatives in the cabinet, was not kept in the dark. He clarified that only agreements related to foreign investments or double taxation need to be submitted to Parliament under Article 157 of the Constitution. Therefore, the petitioners’ claims of constitutional violation were deemed unfounded.
He also noted that while the President must maintain accountability under Article 42, it does not mandate the disclosure of all information to Parliament. He added that Parliament has the authority to summon details of any agreement if it chooses to, which had not occurred in this case.
Taking into account all submissions, the Supreme Court ruled that the petitions lacked sufficient legal basis and therefore dismissed them without proceeding to a formal hearing.
