• Orders DWC DG to replant and restore with costs to be borne by monk

The Supreme Court found yesterday (6) that the Chief Incumbent of the Nakolagane Purana Rajamaha Viharaya, Ven. Walathwawe Rahula Thera, along with several State authorities responsible for environmental protection, violated Fundamental Rights in relation to forest clearing and the construction of electric fences within temple property.

The Fundamental Rights application (SC/FR 351/2022), filed by the Centre for Environmental Justice (CEJ), named multiple respondents including officials from the Wildlife Conservation Department, Central Environmental Authority, Forest Department, Department of Buddhist Affairs, local administration, Police, Archaeology Department, Provincial Environmental Authority, Electricity Board, the monk himself, and the Attorney General.

The petition alleged that around 1,500 acres of forest near the temple had been illegally cleared by or with the involvement of the Chief Incumbent. According to the petitioners, the land had been distributed to influential individuals and companies for commercial agriculture, granite quarrying and soil excavation, with heavy machinery used in the process. Unauthorised electric fences erected around these activities were said to have intensified the human-elephant conflict. The environmental damage also reportedly caused soil erosion, sedimentation in the Palukadawala Tank, and water shortages for paddy cultivation.

The petition further argued that State authorities failed in their statutory duties to prevent or address these activities, thereby infringing Fundamental Rights under Articles 12(1) and 14(1)(h) of the Constitution.

The monk claimed that approximately 4,500 acres belonged to the temple under an ancient Sannasa, and that his actions took place within private temple property. He also argued that the land had not been legally declared a forest reserve, elephant habitat or protected area.

However, the Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Janak De Silva, K. Priyantha Fernando and Sobitha Rajakaruna, found that deforestation had occurred on a large and continuing scale, and that unauthorised electric fences had worsened the human-elephant conflict. The Court held that several State authorities had failed to fulfil their legal obligations to protect the environment and properly regulate temple property.

Addressing the monk’s defence, the Court noted that he had failed to provide proof that the Sannasa was registered as required by law. It further held that even if valid, the Sannasa granted land for religious purposes and explicitly prohibited its use for personal or commercial gain. The Court also cited the Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance, which governs temple property, emphasising that such property cannot be treated as private ownership, nor alienated or used contrary to Buddhist principles.

The Court ruled that the Chief Incumbent, even if acting as trustee, was bound by strict legal duties and had violated both statutory and constitutional obligations. It found that he failed to obtain required environmental approvals, unlawfully erected electric fences without authorisation, and permitted the misuse, leasing and sale of temple lands. The Court also noted sufficient grounds for a criminal investigation.

Importantly, the Court stressed that environmental protection obligations apply regardless of whether land is formally designated as protected. It held that the monk had disregarded his custodial responsibilities over environmentally sensitive land, contributing to environmental destruction and enabling third-party exploitation. The Court also applied the “polluter pays” principle, extending liability to those who facilitate environmental harm.

With regard to State authorities, the Court found that the Wildlife Conservation Department failed to prevent illegal fencing and protect wildlife, while the Central and Provincial Environmental Authorities failed to address forest destruction. The Commissioner of Buddhist Affairs was also faulted for failing to supervise the temple’s administration. These omissions were held to have violated Fundamental Rights relating to environmental protection.

The Court directed the Commissioner of Buddhist Affairs to appoint an independent committee to initiate legal action to nullify unlawful transactions involving temple land and restore such property. The Wildlife Conservation Department was ordered to implement a reforestation programme, including the removal of unauthorised fences, with restoration costs to be borne by the Chief Incumbent.

Finally, the petitioners were instructed to lodge a complaint with Police regarding alleged criminal acts, and authorities were directed to carry out prompt investigations and prosecutions.