The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) and its Executive Director Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, filed a Petition on the 19th December 2025 in the Supreme Court challenging the Emergency (Miscellaneous Provisions and Powers) Regulations No. 1 of 2025 gazetted by Extraordinary Gazette No. 2464/26 dated 28th November 2025.
CPA had previously raised concerns regarding the declaration of the State of Emergency and provided a commentary on the 2025 Regulations. In an earlier statement, CPA acknowledged the gravity of the disaster and the need for a coordinated response, yet emphasized that emergency powers should be a last resort. Under the Public Security Ordinance (PSO), the President is granted significant authority to override existing laws. Reflecting on similar declarations in 2018, 2019, 2021 and 2022, CPA notes a troubling trend in which emergency regulations provide the Executive with authority that exceeds what is actually required to manage the crisis.
The Petitioners argue that the power of the Executive to make Emergency Regulations must be exercised reasonably and proportionately. Furthermore, it was submitted that in addition to the concerns raised about specific Emergency Regulations, as a whole the Emergency (Miscellaneous Provisions and Powers) Regulation No.1 of 2025 are overbroad and vague and undermine the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Sri Lanka.
The Petitioners further argue that the regulations contained in Emergency (Miscellaneous Provisions and Powers) Regulation No.1 of 2025 replicate Regulations issued in 2019, 2021 and 2022 and have no nexus to the natural disaster caused by the Cyclonic storm Ditwah.
___
Case Update
The President promulgated Emergency (Miscellaneous Provisions and Powers) Regulations, No. 1 of 2026 on or about 28th January 2026. These new emergency regulations amended several of regulations challenged by CPA [See Table 1 below].
The Supreme Court on 26th February 2026, took up CPA’s case for support for leave to proceed. On behalf of the President, it was contended that since the regulations challenged by CPA had been amended, the case was of mere academic importance.
In response CPA submitted to Court that;
- The Emergency (Miscellaneous Provisions and Powers) Regulations No. 1 of 2025 operated for a period of two months during which time it operated in violation of the rights of the citizens of Sri Lanka, prior to amendments being brought on or about 28th January 2026,
- Even though the Emergency (Miscellaneous Provisions and Powers) Regulations No. 1 of 2025 were repealed, the regulations could be used to prosecute any individual accused of committing an offence in terms of the said regulations between 28th November 2025 and 28th November 2026. Therefore CPA argued the case had real world consequences,
- A substantial portion of the Emergency (Miscellaneous Provisions and Powers) Regulations No. 1 of 2025, replicate Regulations issued in 2019, 2021 and 2022 and have no nexus to the natural disaster caused by the Cyclonic storm Ditwah If no ruling is made by Court on these regulations there is a risk of them being reproduced again and again.
- To support this argument CPA cited the judgement of the Supreme Court delivered in July 2025, in a previous case on Emergency Regulations. In this judgement ;
- the Supreme Court “noted much merit in the submissions made by learned Counsel for the Petitioners with overwhelming cogence, that particularly during the states of Emergency declared in 2022, the Emergency Regulations promulgated purportedly under section 5 of the PSO fit into a particular template, and that Regulations had been made in a stereotypical and repetitive manner, disregarding the actual purpose for which they were required to be made. Furthermore, the Court noted that most such Regulations would not withstand judicial review due to being overbroad, vague, arbitrary, in excess of restrictions that may be imposed under Article 15 of the Constitution on the exercise of fundamental rights and incompatible with standards relating to the Rule of Law.”
- the Supreme Court ordered Attorney General to, within three (3) months from the date of this Judgment incorporate the principles of law contained in this Judgment into a detailed legal advisory, and forward such advisory to the Office of His Excellency the President for necessary consideration.
- CPA filed two cases challenging Emergency Regulations in 2022. On both occasions at the time the Supreme Court granted leave to proceed, the emergency regulations had lapsed. Nevertheless the Supreme Court granted leave to proceed and in one of the cases delivered final judgement in July 2025.
On this basis CPA and its Executive Director argued that the Supreme Court should grant leave to proceed in this matter as well.
However, after hearing the arguments of parties the Court made order refusing to grant leave to proceed in the case.