The Supreme Court has put off until 14 January the fundamental rights petition over the removal of Ven. Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara Thera’s robes, after the Attorney General’s counsel told the bench that a government committee had already recommended amendments addressing the grievance.
The petitioner, retired Air Force officer Shantha Jayathilaka, appeared before a three-judge bench dressed in Sil Anduma — the white attire worn by Sri Lankan Buddhists observing religious precepts — and brought three sets of Dhamma books for the judges’ reference, the Daily Mirror reported. He said a full understanding of Buddhist teachings and the disciplinary rules applying to monks mattered to the question before the court.
The bench comprised Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena and Justices Mahinda Samayawardena and Sampath Wijeratne.
An exchange over procedure
The Chief Justice observed that the petitioner appeared to have spent a considerable sum on the books, and noted that as a non-lawyer he might not know there is an established procedure for submitting documents to court.
“My Lords, I am a pensioner, and I spent my pension money on purchasing these books,” Jayathilaka replied. “The amount of money does not matter for my purpose.”
State Counsel Chrisanga Fernando, for the Attorney General, then informed the court that a committee appointed by the government had recommended amendments to the prison rules to address the grievances raised in the petition.
“Your grievances are being addressed by the Government,” the Chief Justice said. “We will give you a date to ascertain the developments.”
State Counsel also sought further time to obtain instructions from the Commissioner General of Prisons and the Secretary to the Ministry of Justice. The court fixed the matter for 14 January to consider further developments.
The petitioner’s own rights, not the monk’s
Jayathilaka drew a distinction the earlier filings did not record. He told the court he had not brought the application alleging a violation of Gnanasara Thera’s fundamental rights, but because his own rights as a Buddhist were violated when he saw the monk disrobed and produced in court.
That framing matters to standing: it casts the case as one brought by a member of the Buddhist public over the manner of the disrobing, rather than as a proxy action for the prisoner.
The petition, filed on 8 October, names the Commissioner General of Prisons, the Secretary to the Ministry of Justice and the Attorney General as respondents. It seeks an order directing prison authorities to produce the Thera in his bhikkhu robes, and a declaration that producing him in prison attire violates Articles 10, 12(1) and 14(1)(e) of the Constitution, relying also on Article 9, which requires the State to give Buddhism the foremost place.
It further argues that Prison Standing Order 550 requires an individual to be permitted clothing corresponding to his previous style of dress — a provision the petition itself describes as applying prior to conviction. This newsroom flagged that qualification when the petition was filed: Gnanasara Thera is a convicted prisoner, so whether the order reaches his case is the question at issue. The reported exchange does not resolve it, and the court has not ruled on the merits.
The adjournment was overtaken within a day
The state’s answer to the court was that reform was coming. It arrived almost immediately. The committee’s interim report had gone to the Presidential Secretariat on 14 October, the day before this hearing, and the Department of Prisons then issued a circular permitting monks in custody to wear robes outside prison premises and forwarded a list of the monks it holds to the Commissioner General of Buddhist Affairs.
The practical effect is that the administrative route moved faster than the judicial one. By the time the Supreme Court returns to the file in January, the entitlement the petition sought may already have been granted by circular — though the petition also challenges the lawfulness of what was done to Gnanasara Thera in the first place, which a prospective rule change does not undo.
Two separate proceedings, not one
This is the Supreme Court fundamental rights petition. It is distinct from the Court of Appeal writ application seeking to quash the robe-removal decision, filed separately on 9 October, where petitions were listed to be called on the 22nd. The two run in different courts on different timetables and should not be conflated.
Not reported
The Daily Mirror does not say whether the petition was supported or has been granted leave to proceed, whether any interim relief was sought or refused, or who else appeared. It does not report the respondents’ position on the merits — State Counsel sought instructions rather than stating one — nor whether the court indicated any view on the “prior to conviction” question.
No other verified newsroom’s report of this hearing could be found; Ada Derana has been unreachable from this desk for twenty-eight consecutive days. This account rests on the Daily Mirror’s filing alone.
