From final examination to 3 additional rears? The dispute explained.

Title: Chanuth Thihansa Pathirage and others vs The Incorporated Council of Legal Education and others
Case No:
CA/WRT/085/2026
CA/WRT/093/2026
CA/WRT/099/2026
CA/WRT/102/2026
CA/WRT/107/2026
Decided on: 11.05.2026
Before: Rohantha Abeysuriya, P.C., J. & K.P. Fernando J.

A group of foreign law graduates has challenged a controversial decision requiring them to undergo additional examinations at Sri Lanka Law College despite having already obtained foreign law degrees.

The dispute arose after the students claimed they were initially entitled to sit for a Special Entrance Examination and, upon passing it, proceed directly to the Final Examination of Sri Lanka Law College.
Instead, they were informed that they would also be required to complete the First-Year and Second-Year examinations before becoming eligible for the final stage.

Seeking urgent judicial intervention, the students filed writ applications before the Court of Appeal and requested an interim order suspending the implementation of the new requirement.

Petitioners’ Case: “The Rules Permit Direct Access to the Final Examination”

The petitioners argued that the decision was inconsistent with the legal framework governing foreign law graduates.

According to counsel appearing on their behalf, Section 32A of the Rules of the Incorporated Council of Legal Education (ICLE) provides a mechanism through which foreign law graduates may sit for the Special Entrance Examination and thereafter become eligible to sit directly for the Final Examination of the Law College.

They contended that the decision requiring successful candidates to additionally complete the First-Year and Second-Year examinations imposed a new burden that was not contemplated by the existing rules. On that basis, they maintained that the decision was unlawful and sought an interim order preventing its enforcement until the writ applications were finally determined.

The Constitutional dimension: Can the Court of Appeal review the decision?

The petitioners further argued that the Incorporated Council of Legal Education is a statutory body possessing a distinct legal personality and is therefore amenable to judicial review under Article 140 of the Constitution.

Counsel submitted that statutory restrictions cannot curtail the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal. It was argued that decisions of the ICLE fall within the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court and may therefore be challenged through writ proceedings.

Respondents’ Response: Lawyer Admissions Fall Under the Supreme Court’s Authority

Appearing for the respondents, Senior Additional Solicitor General Sumathi Dharmawardena, P.C., strongly opposed the application for interim relief.

The respondents emphasized that the admission, training, and recruitment process relating to attorneys-at-law is ultimately regulated by the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka. According to their submissions, the Law College examination structure must be viewed as a unified system governed by Supreme Court rules rather than as a series of independent examinations.

It was argued that the examinations conducted by Sri Lanka Law College constitute one examination process divided into three stages. Consequently, decisions relating to that process fall within the regulatory framework established by the Supreme Court.

The respondents relied on Article 136(g) of the Constitution, Rules 67 and 68(a) of the Supreme Court Rules, and academic commentary found in Dr. A.R.B. Amerasinghe’s work Professional Ethics & Responsibilities of Lawyers.

The jurisdictional objection: Was the wrong forum invoked?

A central feature of the respondents’ argument was that any challenge to a decision of the Council concerning legal education and admission to the legal profession should be pursued through the procedure prescribed under the Supreme Court Rules.

According to the respondents, a dissatisfied party should file a Rule Application before the Supreme Court rather than invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal.

This raised an important preliminary question regarding the proper forum for reviewing decisions connected to legal professional training and admission to practice.

Court declines to grant interim relief

After considering the submissions of both sides, the Court of Appeal declined to grant the interim order sought by the petitioners.

As a result, the challenged requirement remains in force pending the further determination of the writ applications.

The refusal of interim relief does not amount to a final determination of the legality of the decision itself. However, it means that, for the present, foreign law graduates who pass the Special Entrance Examination will not receive temporary relief from the requirement to complete the additional Law College examinations.

Why this case matters?

The litigation raises significant questions concerning the pathway available to foreign law graduates seeking admission to the legal profession in Sri Lanka.

At its core, the dispute concerns whether existing legal rules permit foreign graduates to proceed directly to the Final Examination after passing the Special Entrance Examination, or whether the authorities possess the power to require them to complete the First-Year and Second-Year examinations as part of the qualification process.

The case also highlights a broader constitutional issue: whether challenges to decisions of the Incorporated Council of Legal Education should be brought before the Court of Appeal under its writ jurisdiction or before the Supreme Court through the specialized procedure governing legal professional admissions.