PART 5 – 35 Indo-Lanka Agreements. Unconstitutional? Legal and Sovereignty concerns  

Since December 2024, the Anura Kumara Dissanayake government has signed or exchanged 35 bilateral agreements and MoUs with India, covering sensitive sectors such as defense, energy, ports, education, and digital surveillance. However, none of these agreements have been debated in Parliament, disclosed to the public, or subjected to judicial or constitutional review.

This section looks at the legality, procedural validity, and constitutional compatibility of these deals. It also highlights potential violations of national sovereignty, the lack of parliamentary oversight, and the risk of long-term entanglements that could compromise Sri Lanka’s independence.

Key Legal and Constitutional Concerns:

1. 🏛️ Bypassing Parliament and Democratic Oversight

• Constitution vests financial control and public asset management with Parliament.
• None of the agreements were tabled, debated, or ratified in Parliament.
• The President and Cabinet have used executive discretion, despite long-term financial, strategic, and territorial implications.

Legal Implication: Potential violation of the doctrine of separation of powers, and a breach of parliamentary sovereignty under a unitary system.

2. Non-Disclosure Breaches Right to Information (RTI)

• Most MoUs are classified or kept confidential.
• RTI requests made by civil society have been denied or stalled.
• Even Provincial Councils and Auditor General’s Department have not been given access.

Legal Implication: Undermines the RTI Act No. 12 of 2016, which mandates proactive disclosure of agreements with public interest implications.

3. Foreign Troops and Equipment on Sri Lankan Soil

• Defense-related agreements allow Indian aircraft, ships, and surveillance systems to operate from or monitor Sri Lankan territory.
• No Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) framework has been declared.
• Surveillance and radar sharing raises data sovereignty and privacy law concerns.

Legal Implication: May violate Article 157 on foreign agreements requiring legislative scrutiny, and pose threats under national security law.

4. Privatization of Natural Resources without competitive tender

• Indian firms have secured exclusive rights to ports (Kankesanthurai), oil tanks (Trincomalee), solar and wind farms (Mannar, Pooneryn), and mineral zones (Lanka Graphite Ltd).
• No competitive bidding or public procurement standards applied.

Legal Implication: Contravenes Sri Lanka’s Public Contracts Act and Procurement Guidelines (Circular No. 08). Could invite judicial review for arbitrary asset transfers.

5. Risk of Constitutional Violations via Strategic Concessions

• Ramayana Trail and religious-cultural investments undermine the primacy of Buddhism under Article 9.
• Energy grid integration with India affects national security and infrastructure control, without national security clearance.

Legal Implication: Cultural concessions may infringe on the constitutional obligation to protect Buddhist heritage, while infrastructure deals without CEB or SEC oversight may breach regulatory law.

6. Violation of the “No Foreign Troops” Principle

• Article 157A criminalizes aiding or abetting any foreign entity that threatens the territorial integrity or sovereignty of Sri Lanka.
• Critics argue that unmonitored defense and surveillance cooperation—especially in the North and East—may create de facto foreign operational zones.

Legal Implication: If proven, such arrangements could constitute an unconstitutional ceding of strategic control, meriting judicial intervention.

7. Non-Inclusion of National Audit and Financial Disclosure

• Agreements involving loans, grants, and investments by Indian state and private actors have bypassed the National Audit Office.
• The Finance Commission and Public Accounts Committee have not reviewed these arrangements.

Legal Implication: Breach of Fiscal Management (Responsibility) Act No. 3 of 2003, which mandates transparency in public debt and foreign agreements.

Possible Legal Challenges by Agreement Category

While bilateral cooperation is a sovereign prerogative, the manner and secrecy in which the Anura Dissanayake government has signed and operationalized India-linked agreements raises red flags. Without parliamentary debate, legal vetting, or public engagement, these deals could violate core principles of democracy, sovereignty, and constitutionalism. Perhaps they themselves may be unaware of the repercussions of what they have signed & committed to.