The petitioners, Centre for Environmental Justice and two others, bring the case against the Director General of Wildlife Conservation, Department of Wildlife Conservation, on an escalating crisis of Sri Lankan elephant deaths caused by train collisions, framing it as a severe environmental and constitutional issue. The case is filed on 03rd March 2025. The Sri Lankan elephant (Elephas maximus maximus), a culturally significant and endangered keystone species, faces a grave threat to its survival, with over 151 elephants killed in train accidents over the past 13 years. Recent tragedies in Rotawewa (October 2024) and Gal Oya (February 2025), which resulted in the deaths of multiple elephants, including calves, are stark examples of systemic failure.

The environmental harm is profound. As a keystone species, elephants are crucial for maintaining healthy forest ecosystems through seed dispersal, creating water sources, and nutrient cycling. Their loss has cascading effects, destabilizing entire ecosystems and leading to an irreversible ecological catastrophe. The petitioners emphasize that the majority of elephants killed are in their prime reproductive years (30-40 years old), which directly impedes population growth and exacerbates the decline of this endangered subspecies.

The petitioner fundamentally anchored in the violation of core environmental law principles and constitutional directives. They argue that the state’s inaction breaches the Public Trust Doctrine, as the government has failed in its role as a trustee to protect the elephant population, a natural resource held for the public. This inaction also flouts the Precautionary Principle, which mandates preventive measures in the face of serious threat, even amid uncertainty a standard not met despite clear and known dangers. Furthermore, the current situation violates the principle of Sustainable Development by allowing railway infrastructure to operate in a way that destroys ecological heritage, and it breaches Intergenerational Equity by depriving future generations of this national treasure. This negligence is compounded by a disregard for the Directive Principles of State Policy under Articles 27(14)  and 28(f) of the Constitution, which enjoin the state to protect the environment and preserve public property. Consequently, the petitioners argue that the state’s persistent failure to implement effective mitigation measures such as early warning systems, enforced speed limits, protective fencing and clearing vegetation for visibility constitutes a violation of constitutional rights. They state that this continued negligence not only leads to the tragic loss of a national treasure but also causes significant damage to railway infrastructure, disrupts the economy and harms professions dependent on biodiversity and eco-tourism.