Explore Landmark Environmental Case Law in Sri Lanka – Environmental Law
Explore landmark environmental case law in Sri Lanka and how the Supreme Court has responded to pollution, mining, waste, and forest destruction.
Since the enactment of the National Environmental Act No. 47 of 1980, Sri Lankan courts have increasingly played a major role in defining the State’s duty to protect the environment and the responsibility of those who cause environmental harm.
From disputes involving phosphate mining and groundwater pollution to cases concerning marine disasters, garbage dumps, and forest destruction, the judiciary has repeatedly been called upon to balance development against environmental protection and the rights of affected communities.
Several landmark decisions delivered by the Supreme Court now serve as important authorities on how environmental protection should be understood and enforced in Sri Lanka. These cases not only shape public administration and institutional accountability, but have also become increasingly important for law students, researchers, journalists, and legal professionals seeking to understand the evolving environmental law framework in Sri Lanka.
This article examines some of the most significant environmental cases in Sri Lanka and the legal principles established by the courts.
Bulankulama v. Secretary, Ministry of Industrial Development (Eppawala Case)
Can the State commit a natural resource to mining without first assessing the environmental cost?
The case, Bulankulama v. Secretary, Ministry of Industrial Development (2000) 3 SLR 243, arose when residents challenged a proposed agreement to mine the Eppawala phosphate deposit. The Supreme Court found an imminent infringement of the petitioners’ fundamental rights, pointing to problems including the absence of an environmental impact assessment, and directed the authorities to desist from implementing the agreement.
The judgment remains a leading authority on sustainable development, inter-generational equity, and the State’s role as a trustee of natural resources.
Ravindra Gunawardena Kariyawasam v. Central Environmental Authority (Chunnakam Power Plant Case)
Who pays when a power plant pollutes a community’s groundwater?
The case, Ravindra Gunawardena Kariyawasam v. Central Environmental Authority and Others (SC FR 141/2015), arose after residents of Chunnakam in the Jaffna Peninsula faced oil and grease contamination in their wells. In April 2019, the Supreme Court found that the failures of the Central Environmental Authority and the Board of Investment were arbitrary and unreasonable and had violated residents’ fundamental rights.
Applying the polluter pays principle, the Court ordered Northern Power Company to pay Rs. 20 million in compensation.
Centre for Environmental Justice v. Marine Environment Protection Authority (X-Press Pearl Case)
Who is liable when a ship disaster devastates a country’s marine environment?
The X-Press Pearl caught fire near the Port of Colombo in May 2021 and later sank, releasing chemicals and plastic pellets along the coast. In July 2025, in SC/FR 168/2021 and related applications, the Supreme Court held the ship’s owner, operator, and local agent jointly and severally liable and ordered an initial payment of US$1 billion.
The Court applied the polluter pays principle and provided for further assessment of the damage. Reports in August 2026 said only about US$1 million had been paid and that the dispute had moved to arbitration.
Nuwan Bopage and Others v. Colombo Municipal Council and Others (Meethotamulla Case)
Can local authorities keep dumping garbage without a licence because they say there is no alternative?
The case, Nuwan Bopage and Others v. Colombo Municipal Council and Others (SC FR 311/2015 and 318/2015), concerned the Meethotamulla site, which began as a temporary dump in 2009 and collapsed in April 2017, a disaster the judgment records as causing 40 deaths. On 31 March 2026, the Supreme Court held that the disposal operations were unlawful and carried out without the licence required by the National Environmental Act.
The Court found that the acts and omissions of five public bodies infringed the petitioners’ rights under Article 12(1).
Centre for Environmental Justice v. Director General of Wildlife Conservation and Others (Nakolagane Case)
Can State inaction over forest destruction violate the Constitution?
The case, Centre for Environmental Justice v. Director General of Wildlife Conservation and Others (SC FR 351/2022), concerned the alleged clearing of about 1,500 acres of forest land in the Kurunegala District and electric fences said to block elephant migration routes. On 6 May 2026, the Supreme Court held that omissions by State respondents infringed Article 12(1).
The Court also imposed liability on the respondent who claimed the land under an old grant, despite him being a non-State actor. Its directions included forest restoration and a public apology in a national newspaper from certain State respondents.