By Vindya Amaranayake
After 15 long years, one of Sri Lanka’s most significant environmental legal battles has finally come to a close. The Supreme Court’s ruling on the Wilpattu National Park case isn’t just about closing roads. It represents a watershed moment in environmental litigation in the country. It is a compelling testament to the power of perseverance, the importance of independent institutions, and the capacity of the legal system to uphold environmental sanctity amidst formidable political pressure.
What makes this ruling especially significant is the way it reinforces the importance of independent institutions. Despite the immense political pressures surrounding the case, the legal process held firm. The role played by the Attorney General’s Department — particularly Deputy Solicitor General Dr. Avanti Perera — and the stance taken by the Director General of the Department of Wildlife Conservation, shows that when State actors are allowed to function without interference, the results can be both just and transformative.
The Court’s decision to accept the State’s undertakings sends a clear and much-needed message: Wilpattu is not for casual use or political bargaining. Public ‘through traffic’ will no longer be allowed, and any roadwork within the park must strictly adhere to its protected status. This is more than a legal win; it’s a moral one. It affirms that Sri Lanka’s environmental laws exist for a reason — and that they must be respected, no matter how inconvenient they may seem in the short term.
Wilpattu isn’t just any national park. It’s the oldest and largest in the country, home to incredible biodiversity — leopards, elephants, sloth bears, to rare wetland habitats known as villus. It is not just a national treasure. Its ecological value has long been recognised internationally, especially after its designation as a Ramsar Wetland in 2013. Its protection is a matter of national pride and international responsibility. This victory is, therefore, not merely symbolic. It is precedent-setting. It is proof that justice for the environment, though delayed, can prevail.
How it started
On 19 March 2010, Environmental Foundation Ltd (EFL) along with the Wildlife and Nature Protection Society of Sri Lanka, the Wilderness and Protected Areas Foundation, and environmentalist Thilak Kariyawasam, filed a petition in the Supreme Court (SCFR No. 224/2010) alleging that a road running from Puttalam to Mannar through the Wilpattu National Park — which had been constructed by the military during the war — had been unlawfully opened to the public on or about 26.01.2010.
The Respondents named in the petition were: The Director General of the Department of Wildlife Conservation; The Commander of the Sri Lanka Navy; Sri Lanka Tourism Authority; Minister of Resettlement and Disaster Relief Services, Rishad Bathiudeen; The Director General of Archaeology; Minister of Environment and natural Resources, Patalie Champika Ranawaka; and the Attorney General.
They further stated that during the mid-1980s, the park had come under threat due to incursions and attacks by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), resulting in the deaths of several Wildlife Officers. Consequently, the park had been closed to visitors in 1987 for security reasons, though administration remained with the Department of Wildlife Conservation. The park was reopened in 2003, but again closed in 2006 following a landmine attack targeting a vehicle with visitors. From that point onwards, the Armed Forces assumed de facto control of the area. According to the Petitioners, although the A32 road from Mannar to Pooneryn had also been closed around 1988 for security reasons, this road had always been situated north of the Wilpattu National Park and had never passed through it. They cited further official cartographic evidence to substantiate this point. The Petitioners acknowledged that there may have been occasional references to an “Old Mannar Road,” a minor route of which a section might have run through the park in earlier times, but they emphasised that this was not a legitimate or authorised through road.
They then raised grave concern over developments that occurred during the period of military control. Sometime between 2006 and 2010, the Sri Lanka Navy had begun constructing two major roads inside the national park — one running along the western coast within the park boundaries and another further inland. Due to restricted access, the Petitioners were unable to determine the exact date when construction commenced. They annexed aerial photographs depicting the construction.
The Petitioners further stated that three bridges had been constructed along this road and that opening it to public vehicular traffic effectively turned it into an illegal ‘through road’, which should never have been permitted under conservation laws. They feared this would not only cause ecological disruption but would also facilitate uncontrolled access to the park, undermining entry regulation and revenue collection.
The Petitioners firmly held that the construction and public opening of these roads were illegal acts under the Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance and posed a serious threat to the ecological integrity of Wilpattu. Moreover, they warned that allowing such roads to function as public thoroughfares could amount to a covert de-gazetting or unlawful change of the park’s boundaries.
Additionally, they raised the issue of economic loss, pointing out that these roads could allow unauthorised access under the guise of transit, depriving the Department and the State of tourism revenue. They also highlighted the archaeological significance of the park, referencing a 2006 report by W.L.D.P.T.S. de A. Goonatilake, which documented various sites of historical importance, which should have been protected under the Antiquities Ordinance and properly surveyed prior to any development.
Significant stay order
On 6 June 2010, intervenient petitioners filed papers to be added as parties, stating that they were settled in Mannar after they were forcibly evicted by the LTTE, and that the travelling time and distance between Puttalam to Mannar will be reduced by the opening of the road and, therefore, the road should not be closed to the public.
It must be mentioned here the Court of Appeal case CA Writ 291/2015 filed against unlawful release of forest land for settlements by then Minister Rishad Bathiudeen, where the Conservator General of Forests was ordered to implement a tree planting programme at the cost of Bathiudeen.
A preliminary matter was taken up in Court where Additional Solicitor General, President’s Counsel, Bimba Jayasinghe Tillekeratne informed Court that the 22nd Respondent, the Road Development Authority was added at the insisting of Court.
The case faced numerous postponements over the years, with several attempts made to reach a settlement. At one stage, a proposal was tabled to allow limited vehicular access — restricting usage to specific types of vehicles operating under strict speed limits to protect both wildlife and human safety. However, this was met with resistance from the fourth respondent and the ninth to twenty-first respondents, who were the intervenient petitioners, who insisted that trishaws should also be permitted to use the road.
Meanwhile, the Stay Order effectively halted any development work along the route, leaving the road to fall into disrepair over time. Throughout the proceedings, the Sri Lanka Navy maintained that their use of the road was strictly limited to official duties.
Landmark conclusion
The long-running Wilpattu case finally reached its conclusion on 7 May 2025, when it was taken up before the Supreme Court bench chaired by Justice Janak de Silva — who, notably, had also authored the earlier Court of Appeal order relating to the legality of deforestation in Wilpattu.
During the hearing, Deputy Solicitor General Dr. Avanti Perera informed the Court that the Attorney General’s Department had received formal instructions from the current Director General of Wildlife outlining key undertakings. These included a firm commitment that public “through traffic” would no longer be allowed on roads within the national park. Entry into the park, she noted, would be strictly limited to members of the Armed Forces and Police carrying out lawful duties, along with any other individuals granted access under the procedures of the Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance.
She further stated that, while the road in question could continue to exist as a gravel track, any repairs or maintenance would have to be carried out within that limited specification — effectively ruling out future development or upgrades.
Interestingly, the fourth respondent, a former political figure who no longer holds public office, raised no objections and was represented by private counsel. In an unexpected development, Lilanthi de Silva — the instructing attorney for the ninth to twenty-first respondents — formally withdrew her proxy on the same day.
Meanwhile, Ranjan Marasinghe, the Acting Director General of the Department of Wildlife Conservation, told Ceylon Today, “We fully respect the order of the Supreme Court and will act accordingly to keep the existing road maintained with any required repairs and will keep the entry restricted to members of the armed forces and Police performing lawful duties and to those who comply with the provisions of the Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance. As the prohibition applies only to the use of the road as a public thoroughfare, it will continue to be maintained like any other road within the national park.”
Key takeaways
In the end, Wilpattu was spared — not by chance, but by choice. It could so easily have gone the other way. A tarred road might have carved through the heart of the national park, putting countless animals at risk and turning a sanctuary into a shortcut. That was the reality staring us in the face since 2010. But it didn’t happen. And that, in itself, is a triumph worth reflecting on.
This outcome is the result of persistence, principle, and the quiet power of integrity. It happened because the Environmental Foundation Ltd. and its legal team refused to back down, even when the fight stretched into its fifteenth year. It happened because Sri Lanka’s Supreme Court granted leave to proceed and issued a stay order — reminding us that an independent judiciary can be the last line of defence when everything else feels uncertain. It happened because there was a Director General of Wildlife who understood that his duty was not to politicians or popularity, but to the creatures and ecosystems under his care. It happened because the Attorney General’s Department chose to assist the Court rather than obstruct public interest litigation — a rare but vital decision that changed the course of the case.
This is not just a win for Wilpattu. It’s a message to all of us who care about Sri Lanka’s natural heritage: don’t give up. Sometimes, the long road leads to the right place.
Photo courtesy: Environmental Foundation Ltd (EFL)