Sri Lanka: Supreme Court poised to hear country's first climate lawsuit
The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on the island’s first climate litigation case, which will test whether existing fundamental rights protections apply to government actions on climate change.
The lawsuit was filed on 4 May 2022 by the Centre for Environmental Justice (CEJ), its senior adviser Hemantha Withanage and executive director Dilena Pathragoda. The Supreme Court granted leave to proceed on 8 September 2025, clearing the way for full arguments.
The respondents include the president, environment and transport ministries, attorney general, and a number of key energy, environmental and utilities authorities.
The case is a fundamental rights petition, which asks the Supreme Court to decide whether government inaction on climate change violates rights protected by Sri Lanka’s constitution.
The petitioners rely principally on the right to equality, the freedom to engage in a lawful occupation, and freedom of movement and residence. They also point to constitutional environmental duties, such as that to ‘protect nature and conserve its riches’, statutory responsibilities on climate and Sri Lanka’s international commitments under the Paris Agreement.
The choice of rights reflects CEJ’s argument that climate change is not just an environmental policy issue. “Climate change has direct consequences for people's livelihoods, occupations, movement, residence and equality, particularly where vulnerable communities are disproportionately affected,” Kanchana Balachandra, the instructing attorney for CEJ, told The Wave.
The petitioners also point to floods and landslides following Cyclone Ditwah last November as evidence of state failure. They say the government did not turn known climate risks into effective adaptation measures, pointing to gaps in flood management, resilient housing and early-warning systems.
The government rejects allegations of inaction, pointing to existing environmental laws and a growing policy framework, which include the National Environmental Act 1980, the National Environment Policy 2022, National Environmental Action Plan 2022–2030, National Policy on Climate Change 2023 and the Carbon Net Zero 2050 Roadmap.
At the same time, it acknowledged in its legal filing that targets under its previous nationally determined contribution (NDC) to the Paris Agreement were “not effectively carried out during 2021-2023”, which it attributes to severe fiscal constraints during the economic crisis then besieging the country.
Overall, the government maintains that Sri Lanka should not bear primary responsibility for preventing climate harms given its relatively low emissions, climate vulnerability and fiscal constraints. It invokes the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and points to the Loss and Damage Fund as recognition that vulnerable states should not shoulder the burden alone.
CEJ argues that domestic frameworks remain insufficient. It says the National Environmental Act 1980 predates modern climate science and lacks binding mitigation targets and adaptation duties, while newer commitments such as the country’s third NDC have not been translated into domestic law with mechanisms to enforce it.
“The existence of policies, strategies and commitments, by itself, is not sufficient,” said Balachandra. “What matters is whether those measures are effectively implemented, monitored and enforced.”
Litigation history
The case builds on Sri Lanka’s long history of public-interest environmental litigation driven by organisations including the CEJ, but asks the Supreme Court to take that jurisprudence into new territory.
Sri Lanka’s constitution contains no express right to life or a healthy environment. There is nevertheless “a long line of cases that have recognised ‘environmental rights’ by interpreting existing rights, such as equality and livelihood, expansively,” said professor Sumudu Atapattu, a Sri Lankan attorney and director of the Global Legal Studies Center at the University of Wisconsin Law School.
In a case known as Bulankulama, Justice Amerasinghe ruled that, despite UN environmental declarations being ‘soft law’, Sri Lanka, as a UN member could ‘hardly ignore’ them. Later, in Wijebanda, the court held that a right to a clean environment and intergenerational equity are “inherent in a meaningful reading” of the right to equality.
“It would be difficult for the court to say that climate change does not impinge upon the enjoyment of rights,” Atapattu said, pointing to international developments as well, including the International Court of Justice’s July 2025 climate advisory opinion.
“A path-breaking judgment... can have an impact beyond Sri Lanka,” she added.
For Balachandra, the impact at home may be significant. “A successful judgment could strengthen accountability in climate governance and encourage greater integration of climate considerations into government decision-making.”
Arguments are expected to take place later in September, but a date has not yet been confirmed.