• CEJ returns to SC alleging Rs. 50 m per day bag charges bypass promised conservation fund
• Fresh petition targets missing funds, weak enforcement, growing plastic waste crisis
• Govt. plans EPR rules, forcing firms to collect and manage plastic waste
• Absence of formal study appears to cloud next steps on plastic bag policy

Sri Lanka’s long-running battle over plastic pollution has returned to the Supreme Court, with environmentalists alleging that millions of rupees collected daily from consumers through plastic bag charges are not being channelled into conservation, waste management, or plastic reduction efforts as originally promised under an earlier court settlement.

The Centre for Environmental Justice (CEJ) has filed a fresh Fundamental Rights petition (SCFR 53/2026), seeking urgent legal intervention over what it says is the Government’s failure to operationalise a conservation fund to receive revenue linked to charges imposed on single-use plastic shopping bags.

The petition, filed on 8 April, argues that while consumers are now paying for plastic bags at supermarkets and large retail outlets, the legal and financial mechanism required to ensure these funds are used for public environmental purposes is yet to be established.

The respondents named in the case include the Consumer Affairs Authority (CAA), Central Environmental Authority (CEA), Director General of the CEA, Minister of Environment Dr. Dammika Patabendi, Secretary to the Ministry of Environment, Minister of Finance Anura Kumara Dissanayake, Inspector General of Police, and the Attorney General.

Legal battle dates back to 2021

The present case follows earlier proceedings before the Supreme Court in relation to the Fundamental Rights petition SCFR 220/21, also filed by the CEJ. As part of that settlement, a mandatory charge on single-use polythene bags came into effect from 1 November 2025.

Under the arrangement communicated to the court by the Attorney General, supermarkets and large retailers were prohibited from issuing Low-Density Polyethylene (LDPE) and Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) bags (commonly known as ‘sili-sili’ bags) free of charge. Retailers were also required to clearly display bag prices and reflect those charges on customer bills.

Speaking to The Sunday Morning, CEJ Chairman Hemantha Withanage said implementation had been delayed for years due to administrative inaction and legal obstacles.

“Although the settlement was reached, the previous Government failed to act on it. The present administration also moved only after we filed a further motion in court,” he said.

“That pressure resulted in discussions involving the Attorney General’s Department, the CAA, and the CEA to move the process forward.”

He said one of the key barriers had been a gazette issued in 2008, which effectively required companies to provide plastic bags free of charge.

“That 2008 gazette legally mandated that bags be given free of charge. Until it was removed, no proper pricing system could be introduced,” he said.

“The gazette was finally repealed in May 2024, and by 1 November 2025, a pricing structure had been agreed between the companies and the relevant authorities. Small bags were priced at Rs. 3 and larger bags at Rs. 5.”

Issue is not charging, but where the money goes

Withanage said the core dispute was never whether plastic bags should carry a price, but whether the revenue generated from that pricing system was being used for the public purpose agreed before the court.

“The issue is not whether bags are being charged. They are. The issue is that the conservation levy agreed upon in court is not being credited to the Government,” he said.

The original legal action filed by the CEJ in 2021 was intended to end the free distribution of plastic shopping bags and create a dual mechanism that would both discourage wasteful use and generate funding for environmental action.

“Our objective was never merely to make shopping more expensive. It was to minimise the environmental damage caused by the use of plastic shopping bags,” he said.

“We proposed a dual-action system. One was a base price for the bag itself, so people would be discouraged from using it unnecessarily. The second was a Government surcharge or levy, which should have been specifically used for waste management, the introduction of alternatives, and public awareness programmes.”

Withanage alleged that private retailers were retaining substantial profits estimated at up to Rs. 50 million per day because no structured conservation fund had been created.

He said companies were now benefiting from two separate gains: lower procurement costs due to reduced bag distribution, and direct revenue from bag sales.

“The agreed conservation levy has not been incorporated into the national Budget or directed towards environmental protection,” he said.

He claimed that Sri Lanka still used and discarded approximately 20 million plastic bags daily, with consumers now paying for around 30–35% of those bags.

“That has created a profit loop for the companies. We believe that companies are crediting this large income to their own accounts. None of this money is being used for environmental conservation, waste management, or public education as originally intended,” he said.

Visible behavioural changes 

Despite the legal dispute, Withanage said the pricing system itself had already begun changing consumer behaviour.

“Since implementation began on 1 November 2025, plastic bag usage in Sri Lanka decreased quickly by approximately 17%,” he said.

“More importantly, it has changed people’s behaviour. Consumers are now bringing their own reusable bags, or if they buy only one or two items, many prefer to carry them by hand rather than pay for a plastic bag.”

He also described a broader reduction in usage compared with earlier levels as a major environmental gain.

Petition details pollution, wildlife deaths, health risks

The new petition sets out a wide-ranging case on the environmental and health consequences of plastic bag use, arguing that the State’s failure to regulate the sector properly has prolonged avoidable harm.

According to the filing, discarded plastic bags have caused blocked drains, waterways, rivers, and streams, worsened flooding risks, polluted landscapes, and created visible urban blight.

It also states that plastic production relies on petroleum derivatives, linking the sector to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Chemicals used in plastic manufacture – including phthalates, bisphenol A (BPA), polybrominated diphenyl ethers, and tetrabromo BPA – were cited in the petition as substances associated with endocrine disruption and other health concerns.

The CEJ further argued that burning polythene released toxic gases, including dioxins, furans, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide, contributing to respiratory illness, cardiovascular disease, reduced fertility, and cancer risks.

The petition also highlights wildlife deaths linked to plastic waste, stating that elephants foraging at garbage dumps near habitats have been found with kilos of polythene in their stomachs, while marine mammals, fish, and sea turtles have drowned, suffocated, or died after swallowing bags or becoming entangled in them.

It further warns that hot food packed in plastic bags may be exposed to migrating chemicals such as styrene, phthalates, and BPA, which have been associated with various health risks.

Alleged rights violations and relief sought

In its new petition, the CEJ contended that weak coordination among authorities and a lack of consistent enforcement had enabled continued breaches of environmental law. It argued that these failures amounted to a violation of the State’s duty to protect the environment, the Polluter Pays Principle (PPP), and the public’s right to live in a clean and healthy environment.

Among the relief sought are notices on respondents, a declaration that rights under Article 12(1) of the Constitution have been violated or are being violated, and orders compelling authorities to establish a comprehensive system promoting eco-friendly, reusable, and biodegradable alternatives to polythene.

The petition also seeks a more efficient regulatory framework under the Environment Conservation Levy Act No. 26 of 2008, the imposition of a Government-controlled tax on polythene, the creation of a dedicated public fund using such revenue, and stricter enforcement of existing laws.

Withanage asserted that companies were profiting from something which was once given for free, while environmental objectives remained unfulfilled.

“That is why we have initiated a fresh legal challenge,” he said.

“Our expectation in this new case is to ensure this surcharge is collected under the 2008 Conservation Levy Act. The money collected from plastic bag sales must be strictly utilised for conservation activities, waste management, and fulfilling the original promise of the case we filed in 2021.”

Responses of the authorities

Statements made by Environment Minister Dr. Patabendi and the Deputy Minister of Environment, however, appear to reflect differing positions on the issue.

When asked on an earlier occasion about the delay in establishing a conservation fund, Deputy Minister of Environment Anton Jayakody acknowledged that although customers were paying for plastic bags, the absence of a dedicated conservation fund had resulted in retailers retaining the proceeds.

He said the Government was preparing to introduce a formal legal framework within the next two to three months to regulate the levy and establish a State-managed conservation fund under the National Environmental Act. 

According to Jayakody, the ministry will oversee the fund and ensure that revenue collected from plastic bag charges is directed towards initiatives aimed at reducing plastic use nationwide.

The Deputy Minister added that while the initial charges had led to an almost 50% reduction in plastic bag usage, recent data indicated a gradual increase in consumption.

“As a result, we are also considering the need for a structured and enforceable regulatory mechanism,” Jayakody said.

Attempts to contact Deputy Minister Jayakody concerning recent developments, however, were unsuccessful.

Nevertheless, when The Sunday Morning contacted Dr. Patabendi following the fresh legal action, he said: “We have instructed supermarkets to charge a fee for polythene bags. The intention is to discourage their use. That is now being implemented. Because of that, it has been reported that the use of plastic in that manner has decreased by about 50%.”

The Minister also referred to proposed amendments to the National Environmental Act, including the introduction of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for plastic. EPR is an environmental policy that places legal and financial responsibility on producers, importers, and brand owners for the full lifecycle of their plastic packaging.

“With EPR, institutions must inform us about the volume of plastic products they manufacture. They are required to collect them. We will be monitoring and investigating that process. This will contribute to reducing plastic pollution.

“By imposing the levy on polythene bags, we took the first step to reduce usage, and it has been successful. Now, we need to calculate whether these institutions are actually making as much profit as is being claimed. When usage drops by 50%, revenue decreases. When income drops, the question arises as to how they could be making a profit.

“Therefore, we need to obtain solid statistical data regarding this before we take the next steps. Once that information has been gathered, we can consider this matter on a fair basis.”

Attempts to contact CEA Director General Kapila Rajapaksha were unsuccessful.