The case of Bulankulama and Others v. Secretary, Ministry of Industrial Development (2000) 3 SLR 243, commonly known as the Eppawala Phosphate Case or Eppawala Case, stands as a landmark environmental case in Sri Lanka. It is a crucial decision that emphasized the importance of sustainable development, the doctrine of public trust, and citizens’ right to a clean and healthy environment. This case highlighted the judiciary’s role in upholding environmental rights against exploitative state-led economic projects and emphasized the constitutional duty of the State to protect and conserve natural resources for the benefit of future generations
Case Title: Bulankulama and Others v. Secretary, Ministry of Industrial Development
Known as: Eppawala Case
Citation: (2000) 3 Sri LR 243
Court: Supreme Court of Sri Lanka | SC FR APPLICATION NO. 884/99
Before : Justice Amerasinghe (delivered the judgment), Justice Wadugodapitiya and Justice Gunasekera
Petitioners: Bulankulama and eight others (residents of Eppawala)
Respondents: Secretary, Ministry of Industrial Development, and others
Decided on: 07 April, 2000
Click to view the case summary, all insights with access to the Eppawala case PDF in AI Pazz.
Background of the Eppawala Case
The case emerged in response to a proposed large-scale phosphate mining project in Eppawala, located in the North Central Province of Sri Lanka. The region contains an estimated 60 million metric tons of apatite – a mineral rich in phosphate. In 1997, the Sri Lankan government entered into a preliminary agreement with a U.S. company, Freeport McMoRan Resource Partners, and their local partner, IML Lanka Ltd., to explore and develop the Eppawala phosphate deposits.
However, the agreement was heavily criticized for being non-transparent and potentially damaging to the local environment, culture, agriculture, and water systems, including the ancient and historically significant Jayaganga irrigation system. Local villagers, activists, and professionals feared that extensive mining operations would lead to displacement, environmental degradation, and long-term loss of agricultural fertility in the region. The petitioners filed a Fundamental Rights application under Article 126 of the Constitution, asserting that their rights were being violated or were at imminent risk.
Legal Issues
The case raised several significant legal and constitutional issues:
– Whether the proposed phosphate mining project violated the Fundamental Rights of the petitioners under Articles 12(1), 14(1)(g), and 14(1)(h) of the Constitution.
– Whether the State has a constitutional and public trust obligation to protect and conserve natural resources for the benefit of both present and future generations.
– Whether the lack of a proper Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) amounted to a breach of legal and constitutional duties.
– The applicability of international environmental principles and treaties ratified by Sri Lanka.
Petitioners’ Arguments
The petitioners contended that:
1. Violation of Fundamental Rights: The mining project, if implemented, would violate their right to equal protection of the law (Article 12(1)), their freedom to engage in lawful occupation (Article 14(1)(g)), and their freedom to reside and settle anywhere in Sri Lanka (Article 14(1)(h)).
2. Public Trust Doctrine: Natural resources, including phosphate deposits and water systems, are held in trust by the State for the benefit of the people. The proposed agreement would amount to an abdication of this trust, transferring national assets to a foreign corporation for short-term gains.
3. Environmental Destruction: Large-scale mining would irreversibly harm the ecology, soil fertility, water resources, and ancient irrigation systems like the Jayaganga. The environmental and cultural heritage of Eppawala would be irreparably damaged.
4. Lack of Proper Environmental Procedure: The agreement lacked adequate environmental assessments and public consultations, violating statutory duties under the National Environmental Act and international obligations such as the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development.
5. Future Generations: The exploitation of a non-renewable resource without a long-term conservation plan undermines intergenerational equity, depriving future Sri Lankans of their natural heritage.
Respondents’ Arguments
The respondents argued that:
1. Economic Development: The phosphate project was in line with the government’s development policy and essential for economic growth. It would create employment and generate revenue for the state.
2. No Immediate Harm: Since the agreement was only in a preliminary stage, there was no actual or imminent violation of rights. Thus, the application was premature.
3. State Discretion: The State had the discretion to decide how to utilize its natural resources in the national interest. Judicial intervention in economic decisions would impede development.
4. Environmental Safeguards: The respondents assured that appropriate environmental protection mechanisms would be implemented once the project commenced, including EIAs as required under law.
Judgment of the Eppawala Case
Justice Amerasinghe delivered a profound and precedent-setting judgment in favor of the petitioners. Key points of the judgment include:
Recognition of Environmental Rights: While the Constitution does not expressly guarantee a right to a healthy environment, the Court read environmental protections into Article 12(1) and emphasized that environmental well-being is essential for the exercise of other fundamental rights.
Doctrine of Public Trust: The Court held that the State is the trustee of natural resources and has a fiduciary duty to protect them for present and future generations. The proposed agreement violated this duty.
Sustainable Development: The Court invoked the principle of sustainable development, stressing that economic advancement must not come at the expense of environmental destruction or the rights of citizens.
Precautionary Principle: Even in the absence of full scientific certainty, actions potentially causing serious or irreversible harm to the environment must be avoided. The lack of an EIA and the risk of environmental harm justified intervention.
State Obligations: The Court directed the State to conduct a comprehensive and independent environmental impact assessment before proceeding with any mining activity. It also emphasized the need for public participation in decision-making processes concerning environmental matters.
International Law Influence: The Court drew upon international treaties and norms, including the Rio Declaration, recognizing their persuasive value in interpreting constitutional duties regarding the environment.
Outcome
The Supreme Court issued a writ of prohibition against proceeding with the agreement without proper legal and environmental procedures. It effectively halted the Eppawala phosphate project in its existing form and set a precedent for future development initiatives involving natural resources in Sri Lanka.
Significance of the Eppawala Case
Environmental Jurisprudence in Sri Lanka: This case is one of the most cited and influential environmental judgments in Sri Lanka, laying the foundation for future public interest litigation involving environmental rights.
Judicial Activism: The judgment marked a significant instance of judicial activism, where the Court proactively protected environmental and human rights in the absence of specific constitutional guarantees.
Public Trust and Intergenerational Equity: The decision reinforced that the State holds natural resources in trust and must consider the rights of future generations in its policy decisions.
Citizens’ Role and Awareness: It empowered citizens to challenge government decisions that may harm the environment and emphasized the importance of public participation in environmental governance.
Sustainable Development Norms: The case affirmed the relevance of international environmental law and sustainable development principles in Sri Lankan jurisprudence.
Critical Analysis
The Eppawala judgment was groundbreaking not only for its immediate impact but also for its doctrinal contributions. It expanded the scope of Fundamental Rights to indirectly include environmental concerns and set a benchmark for responsible state conduct in environmental matters.
However, some critics argue that the absence of an express constitutional right to a healthy environment remains a limitation. Future constitutional reforms might consider addressing this gap. Furthermore, although the judgment emphasized the need for an EIA, enforcement of such judicial directions has often been inconsistent due to political and administrative inertia.
Conclusion of the Eppawala Case
Bulankulama v. Secretary, Ministry of Industrial Development remains a cornerstone of environmental and public trust litigation in Sri Lanka. It illustrates how the judiciary can safeguard natural resources and community interests against exploitative projects by invoking constitutional values, international norms, and principles of equity and sustainability. The Eppawala case is not just a legal precedent but also a symbol of environmental democracy and civic resistance in Sri Lanka.
Sri Lankan Judgments Similar to Eppawala Case
1. Environmental Foundation Ltd v. Urban Development Authority of Sri Lanka and Others SC (FR) Application No. 47/2004
– Facts: Concerned illegal filling of the Muthurajawela wetlands.
– Held: Protection of environmentally sensitive areas is a public trust duty of the State.
– Principle: Reinforced the precautionary principle and sustainable development.
2. Centre for Environmental Justice (CEJ) and Others v. Central Environmental Authority and Others SC FR Application No. 141/2015
– Issue: Deforestation in the Wilpattu forest area.
– Held: Illegal forest clearing violated the public trust doctrine.
– Outcome: Court ordered reforestation and upheld environmental safeguards.
3. Wimalasena v. Gunawardena and Others (1996) 1 Sri LR 287
– Issue: Unauthorized quarrying activities affecting community health.
– Held: Upheld environmental rights under Article 12(1), even though not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
4. Waters Edge Case – Sugathapala Mendis and Others v. Ceylon Tourist Board and Others (2007) 1 Sri LR 193
– Facts: Government land leased to a private developer near Diyawanna Oya.
– Held: Land held under public trust cannot be alienated arbitrarily.
– Significance: Important for environmental and land use governance.
Click here to explore the Chunnakam Case Study
– Facts: Waste oil from a privately operated power plant in Chunnakam contaminated groundwater, affecting local residents.
– Held: The Court of Appeal held that the authorities failed to enforce environmental laws, violating the fundamental rights of the affected people.
– Significance: A landmark case emphasizing state responsibility in environmental protection and the right to clean water.
Indian Judgments Judgments Similar to Eppawala Case
1. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Ganga Pollution Case) AIR 1988 SC 1037 (India)
– Landmark Indian judgment recognizing the right to a pollution-free environment as part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
2. Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1985 SC 652 (India)
– First Indian case on environmental protection through public interest litigation.
– Court banned limestone mining in the Mussoorie Hills due to ecological degradation.
3. M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997) 1 SCC 388 (India)
– Introduced and enforced the public trust doctrine in Indian law.
– Concerned illegal construction along the Beas River harming the river ecology.
International Influence & References in Eppawala Case
1. Trail Smelter Arbitration (United States v. Canada) (1938 and 1941 decisions)
– Recognized the principle that no state has the right to use its territory to cause environmental harm to another.
2. Stockholm Declaration (1972) & Rio Declaration (1992)
– Cited in Sri Lankan judgments including Eppawala, affirming intergenerational equity, sustainable development, and the precautionary principle.
Get access all the law reports including all NLR and SLR Volumes and all Sri Lankan case laws in AI Pazz. Sri Lanka’s largest and the most up-to-date digital legal library.