A Special Investigative Report – HariDeshayaLk
Kaleliya Muslim Ladies Arabic College, an institution that plays a unique role in uplifting Muslim women’s education in Sri Lanka, is currently facing a severe legal and administrative crisis. The legal dispute over whether this institution is a private property or subject to public religious custody under ‘Waqf’ has now reached the highest court in the country.
However, against the backdrop where the Supreme Court has issued a ‘Status Quo’ (maintaining the current state) order regarding this situation, attempts by certain groups to file fresh lawsuits against the college management within the Waqf Tribunal directly contradict this directive and raise serious legal concerns.
Through this article, we draw the attention of the authorities to the legal foundation underlying this entire process and the unlawfulness of initiating new litigation under the prevailing circumstances.
1. The Legal Power of a Private Institution Incorporated by an Act of Parliament
Kaleliya Muslim Ladies Arabic College is not just an ordinary registered institution. It is an independent entity granted legal personality through a special Act of Incorporation passed by the Parliament of Sri Lanka.
- Legal Status: When an institution is incorporated by an Act of Parliament, its administration, assets, and management must strictly adhere to the provisions of that specific Act.
- Its governing board holds full legal rights to acquire, retain, and manage property, and it cannot be automatically converted into a regular ‘Waqf’ property.
2. The Supreme Court’s ‘Status Quo’ Order and Its Impact
The governing board of the college filed an appeal before the Supreme Court against a decision by the Waqf Board declaring this property as Waqf property. In those proceedings, the Supreme Court issued a ‘Status Quo’ order to protect the rights of the current administration.
- Legal Interpretation: When the Supreme Court issues a ‘Status Quo’ order, it means that no party has the right to make any changes to the property or the administrative structure of the institution until a final judgment is delivered.
- As long as this powerful order from the Supreme Court remains in effect, neither the Waqf Board nor any other external institution has the legal space to interfere with the powers of the current governing board or implement new decisions.
3. Why Filing Fresh Lawsuits Before the Waqf Tribunal is Unlawful
While the aforementioned Supreme Court order is active, attempts by certain factions to approach the Waqf Tribunal to initiate fresh litigation against the current management is entirely unlawful. Two main legal principles apply here:
A. Contempt of Court
Seeking relief or taking action in a lower tribunal on the exact same subject matter while an interim order from the Supreme Court—the highest court in the land—is in effect constitutes a direct violation of the Supreme Court’s directive. Under the Penal Code and the Constitution of Sri Lanka, this is considered an offense of Contempt of Court.
B. The Legal Principles of ‘Res Judicata’ and ‘Sub Judice’
1. Sub Judice (Matters Under Adjudication): If a particular matter is currently being heard before a higher court in the country, it is prohibited to file or hear parallel lawsuits on the same matter in a lower court or tribunal.
2. Prevention of Multiplicity of Legal Proceedings: The law does not permit multiple lawsuits to be filed across different courts between the same parties, for the same purpose, and based on the same cause of action.
Conclusion: The Rule of Law Must Be Upheld
Attempts to destabilize an educational institution like Kaleliya Muslim Ladies Arabic College, which serves the nation, for personal agendas are both unlawful and unethical.
The Department of Muslim Religious and Cultural Affairs, the Waqf Board, and the Waqf Tribunal must fully respect the ‘Status Quo’ order delivered by the Supreme Court. Our legal investigation at ‘HariDeshayaLk’ clarifies that while a Supreme Court judgment is pending, any external legal operation carried out against the college’s governing board amounts to defiance of the judiciary and is legally void.