This report provides an objective overview of the recent Fundamental Rights petition filed in the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka regarding a major renewable energy tender. It highlights the allegations of procedural irregularities and potential financial loss to the State involving the Ministry of Power and Energy. As the case is currently under judicial review, this summary focuses on the verified court proceedings and the broader implications for public procurement transparency, while upholding the principle that all allegations remain unproven until a final verdict is reached.
Sri Lanka’s public procurement process has once again come under judicial scrutiny following a Fundamental Rights (FR) petition filed in the Supreme Court concerning the award of a large-scale renewable energy project. Among those named as respondents is Minister of Power and Energy Kumara Jayakody, alongside senior state officials and several private entities.
While the case does not involve criminal charges, it raises significant questions about transparency, decision-making, and potential financial exposure to the State, with the petitioner alleging losses exceeding Rs. 3 billion.
This article examines the verified facts of the case, the legal issues before the Supreme Court, and why the matter has broader public importance.
Background to the Case
The case arises from a solar power project tender issued by the Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB) for the development of a 100-megawatt solar power plant in the Siyambalanduwa–Athimale area.
A Fundamental Rights petition was filed under Article 126 of the Constitution, which allows the Supreme Court to review executive or administrative actions alleged to have violated constitutionally protected rights.
The petitioner contends that the tender evaluation and contract award process deviated from accepted norms and resulted in an avoidable financial burden on the public.
Core Allegations in the Petition
According to court filings and media reports, the petitioner alleges the following:
A bidder offering a lower electricity tariff reportedly USD 0.08 per kilowatt-hour was initially overlooked in favor of a higher-priced bid of USD 0.122 per kilowatt-hour.
Although the final agreement is said to have adopted the lower tariff, the State allegedly agreed to bear the cost of transmission infrastructure for a period of approximately 10 years.
The petitioner estimates that this arrangement could result in a financial loss exceeding Rs. 3 billion to the government.
It is argued that the procurement process lacked equal treatment, transparency, and rational justification, amounting to an infringement of fundamental rights, including the right to equality before the law.
These claims remain allegations and are yet to be tested through full judicial proceedings.
Respondents Named
The Supreme Court has issued notices to a broad group of respondents, including:
Minister of Power and Energy Kumara Jayakody
The Ceylon Electricity Board
The Secretary to the Ministry of Power and Energy
The Cabinet Secretary
Several state-linked and private companies associated with the project
The inclusion of multiple institutional actors reflects the petitioner’s position that the alleged irregularities stem from systemic administrative decisions, rather than the actions of a single individual.
Supreme Court Proceedings So Far
On 20 February 2025, a bench of the Supreme Court directed that notices be issued to all respondents, marking the formal commencement of proceedings.
At the initial stage:
The Attorney General’s Department was represented by a Deputy Solicitor General.
The petitioner requested that the matter be treated as urgent, citing public interest and potential financial loss.
The Court has not, at this stage, made any findings on the merits of the allegations.
The case remains pending, with further submissions and hearings expected.
Legal Nature of the Case
It is important to note that:
This is not a criminal prosecution and does not constitute a corruption charge.
A Fundamental Rights case focuses on whether state action was lawful, reasonable, and consistent with constitutional guarantees.
If a violation is established, the Court may issue declaratory relief, corrective orders, or guidelines, but it does not determine criminal guilt.
Any criminal liability, should it arise, would require separate proceedings before the appropriate investigative or prosecutorial authorities.
Wider Public Significance
The case highlights recurring concerns in Sri Lanka’s governance framework:
Public procurement transparency, particularly in large-scale energy projects
The balance between renewable energy development and fiscal responsibility
Judicial oversight as a safeguard against arbitrary or opaque executive decision-making
Regardless of its final outcome, the petition underscores the role of the Supreme Court as a forum for public accountability, especially where large sums of public money are involved.
Conclusion
As proceedings continue, the Supreme Court case involving Minister Kumara Jayakody remains a live constitutional matter, not a determination of wrongdoing. The Court’s eventual findings will be crucial in clarifying whether the challenged procurement decisions met the standards of legality and fairness required under Sri Lanka’s Constitution.
Until then, the allegations remain unproven, and all respondents are entitled to the presumption of lawful conduct, subject to judicial review.