By Rusiripala Tennakoon –

There are occasions when a judicial decision transcends the immediate dispute before the Court and assumes a wider constitutional significance. Such judgments not only determine the rights of the parties but also reaffirm the enduring principles upon which democratic governance depends. In my respectful view, the recent Supreme Court judgment delivered on 30 March 2026 in the Seagull Property Developers case is one such landmark.

The two petitioners in this case pursued their legal battle for more than 22 years. They challenged a private property developer over the prolonged failure to remove an unlawful construction that deprived the occupants of an apartment complex of facilities that had been promised to them. The dispute remained unresolved for over two decades largely because of the inaction and institutional failures of the relevant Public Authorities.

The court observed that the Condominium Management Authority (CMA) . Colombo Municipal Council (CMC), and the Urban development Authority (UDA) failed ,over many years, to exercise and enforce their statutory powers despite decisions and recommendations requiring them to do so. The Court held that the institutional failure ,executive inaction and negligent conduct amounted to a violation of the Petitioners constitutional right to equal protection of the law under Article 12(1) of the constitution.

Uncompromisingly, Justice A.H.M.D. Nawaz observed that “the developer had effectively being allowed to operate in a regulatory vacuum created by the prolonged failure of the statutory authorities.”

This measure of a great judgment lies not merely in the legal issues it resolves but in the confidence it inspires among citizens that the rule of law remains the ultimate safeguard against injustice. This judgment demonstrates that the Constitution is not an abstract declaration of ideals but a living instrument intended to protect the rights of the people and ensure accountability in the exercise of public power.

One of the most significant aspects of this decision is the Court’s willingness to examine not only the conduct of private parties but also the consequences of prolonged institutional inaction by public authorities. Public institutions are established to serve the people. Their statutory powers are accompanied by corresponding duties. Where those duties are neglected, delayed or exercised arbitrarily, the effects are often borne by ordinary citizens whose legitimate expectations and investments may suffer through no fault of their own.

The consequential effects of such administrative failures are not confined to the grievences of individual citizens. As many instances have demonstrated, they also impede investment , undermine public confidence and adversely affect the country’s economic and development activities.

The judgment serves as a timely reminder that administrative authority is never immune from judicial scrutiny. Accountability remains the cornerstone of constitutional governance, and every institution exercising public power must act fairly, responsibly and within the law. It is regrettable that disputes of this nature often culminate in prolonged litigation, with the Attorney General’s Dept being required to defend the actions or inactions of public institutions instead of such matters being resolved administratively at an earlier stage .

Equally commendable is the practical approach adopted by the Supreme Court in fashioning effective remedies. Courts exist not merely to pronounce legal principles but to ensure that justice is meaningful. A judgment that identifies a wrong without providing an effective remedy may satisfy legal theory but not the demands of justice. This decision reflects a careful appreciation of both legal principle and practical reality.

The judgment also recognizes the extraordinary perseverance displayed by the petitioners, whose pursuit of justice extended over more than two decades. Their determination is a powerful reminder that faith in the judicial process can endure even through years of uncertainty and disappointment. Their perseverance deserves admiration, for it reflects an unwavering belief that justice, though delayed, should never be abandoned.

In a society governed by the rule of law, such perseverance must never be viewed as an individual triumph alone. It is a reaffirmation of the confidence that citizens continue to repose in the independence and integrity of the Courts.

The learned Judge who authored this judgment deserves the highest commendation because the judgement itself exemplifies judicial scholarship, constitutional fidelity, intellectual courage and a steadfast commitment to the rule of law.

During my own lifetime in public service and public affairs, I have witnessed both the strengths and the shortcomings of institutions. We have witnessed how matters remain unresolved due to intransigencies of officials at certain levels not subject to any review by officials of a next higher level. Experience has taught me that public confidence is not sustained merely by laws enacted by Parliament or policies announced by governments. It is sustained when institutions discharge their responsibilities with integrity, fairness and accountability, and when the Courts stand ready to uphold those principles without fear or favor.

Many citizens across our country continue to encounter administrative delays, institutional indecision and the frustration of seeing legitimate expectations postponed for years. While each case must necessarily be decided on its own facts, this judgment offers renewed assurance that the law remains a powerful instrument for ensuring accountability where public duties have not been faithfully discharged.

It is therefore my sincere hope that this judgment will be studied not only by lawyers and judges but also by administrators, public officials, regulators and policymakers. It provides valuable guidance on the responsibilities that accompany the exercise of public power and on the consequences of failing to discharge those responsibilities in accordance with law.

Landmark judgments become landmarks because they illuminate the path that others should follow. They strengthen public confidence in the administration of justice and reinforce the constitutional values upon which our democracy rests.

It reminds us that although justice may at times be delayed, constitutional governance ultimately demands that public power be exercised, according to law. In that enduring principle lies the greatest assurance that arbitrariness will yield to accountability, and that rights of citizens will not be defeated by institutional indifference.