In reference to the Sunday Times article dated 5 October 2025, titled “Supreme Court clears way for rugby election”, the majority of Sri Lanka Rugby stakeholders and Provincial Unions wish to issue this clarification to correct the misleading and contradictory interpretation presented in the said publication.
The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka, on 3 October 2025, refused to grant Special Leave to Appeal and therefore dismissed the Special Leave to Appeal application challenging the order of Justice M. Laffar and Justice Priyantha Fernando, which rescinded the contempt rule issued against the Director General of Sports, and permitted the then Director General of Sports to withdraw from a settlement entered into in the Court of Appeal.
It is important to emphasize that this Special Leave to Appeal application preferred to the Supreme Court arose from a contempt of court application filed against the Director General, alleging non-compliance with a prior settlement arrived at before the Court of Appeal in Case No. CA/WRIT/438/2024. That prior settlement required the Director General to first convene an Annual General Meeting (AGM) of Sri Lanka Rugby, and thereafter amend its Constitution.
The Supreme Court’s decision to refuse Special Leave to appeal was limited strictly to whether the propriety of the Order of the Court of appeal in recalling the Rule and permitting the Director General to withdraw from the settlement upon which the said case Case No. CA/WRIT/438/2024 was withdrawn
Crucially, the Supreme Court has not ruled upon, nor made any determination regarding, the validity, legality, or procedural correctness of the Sri Lanka Rugby Constitution or its amendments. Therefore, this Order of the Supreme Court in refusing Special Leave to Appeal does not validate or endorse any constitutional amendments or procedures carried out subsequent to the original settlement.
Accordingly, the judgment does not affect nor prejudice any ongoing or pending cases before the courts relating to:
• the legality or constitutionality of the amended Sri Lanka Rugby Constitution, and
• the proper process by which such amendments should be effected.
Any suggestion or interpretation that this Supreme Court decision “clears the way” for elections or endorses the validity of the amended Constitution is incorrect, misleading, and contrary to the scope of the ruling.
The Supreme Court ruling was confined exclusively to the issue of contempt, and did not address or determine the substantive constitutional matters that remain before the judiciary.
The stakeholders and Provincial Unions urge all media institutions to report responsibly and accurately, refraining from publishing distorted interpretations that may mislead the rugby fraternity or the public at large.
Leave Comments