SC orders SLISM petitioners to name ex-President Gotabaya as respondent in FR case

By T. Farook Thajudeen

The Supreme Court on Monday ordered the petitioners in a Fundamental Rights petition, filed by the Sri Lanka Islamic Students Movement (SLISM), to name former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa as the first respondent. The case, filed in response to a 2021 Gazette notification issued under Rajapaksa’s presidency, challenges its validity and alleges infringement of the petitioner’s constitutional rights.

President’s Counsel M.N.M. Zuhair, representing SLISM, argued that Gazette notification No. 2223/3, dated April 13, 2021, signed by Gotabaya Rajapaksa, was “ultra vires” (beyond legal authority), invalid, and unlawful. He contended that the notification had no force or effect in law and should be declared null and void by the court.

Zuhair further explained that the petitioners became aware that the notification, which proscribed the SLISM, infringed upon their Fundamental Rights as guaranteed under Article 10 of the Constitution. As a result, they sought a legal declaration that the Gazette was not legally enforceable. 

A bench comprising Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya PC, Murdu Fernando PC, and Mahinda Samayawardena PC, ordered the petitioners—Mohamed Ali Amjath Khan, Zuhri Ahamed, and Shamil Jowfer of SLISM—to substitute former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa as the first respondent in the case. The court also directed the petitioners to amend the names of the second, third, and fourth respondents to reflect the current holders of those offices. The case has been scheduled for further proceedings on 3 March 2025.

The petitioners argued that the Gazette notification not only violated their rights but also infringed upon the rights of the broader Muslim community. They contended that the directive enforced the cremation of COVID-19 victims, thereby preventing Muslims and other religious communities from observing their burial rituals. This, they claimed, exacerbated the distress of religious minorities and violated fundamental human rights, as highlighted by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR).

The petitioners sought a declaration that Gazette Notification No. 2223/3 violated their Fundamental Rights under Article 10 of the Constitution. They further asserted that the notification was irrational, prejudicial, and inconsistent with the principles of natural justice.

M.N.M. Zuhair OC appeared for the petitioners, along with Attorneys-at-Law Faris Saly, M.N.M. Muneer, Rizwan Uvais, Gayani Pradeepa, Shilpa Ravihansi, and Husna Muzammil, instructed by Shanesh Dissanayake. The case is set to continue with a hearing in March next year, where the petitioners will further support their arguments against the contested Gazette notification.