The Centre for Environmental Justice (CEJ) and others filed a Fundamental Rights petition before the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka under Article 126 of the Constitution, challenging the approval and continuation of an ilmenite mining and processing project proposed along the Palchenai–Verugal coastal stretch near Vakarai in the Batticaloa District. The petitioners stated that Vakarai, a coastal community depend on fishing and farming, had rebuilt its economic and social stability after decades of war and the 2004 tsunami. However, this stability was now threatened by a project undertaken by Alchemy Heavy Metals (Pvt) Ltd, which sought to extract ilmenite, garnet, rutile, and zircon from the coastal sands and establish a mineral processing plant at Kathiraveli. The mining area, approximately 50 meters wide, lies within the legally protected Coastal Zone under the Coast Conservation and Coastal Resource Management Act No. 57 of 1981, thereby requiring strict environmental regulation.

The petitioners argued that although only an Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) had been conducted in 2011–2012, no Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was carried out despite the project’s scale and potential harm. The outdated IEE failed to reflect the current environmental and socio-economic context, rendering it inadequate and non-compliant with the National Environmental Act, the Coast Conservation Act, and Extraordinary Gazette No. 772/22. The failure to conduct a comprehensive EIA and the reliance on outdated data, they contended, amounted to a violation of statutory duties by the authorities responsible for environmental oversight.

The petition highlighted that the proposed mining posed serious environmental risks, including coastal erosion, flooding, destruction of mangroves and coral reefs, marine pollution, groundwater depletion, and the loss of biodiversity, all of which would cause irreparable ecological damage and threaten the livelihoods of coastal fishing communities. It was further noted that the ilmenite concentration in Vakarai was only around 2%, compared to 40% in Pulmudai, offering minimal economic benefit while imposing severe environmental and social costs. The petitioners also revealed that the former Divisional Secretary of Vakarai had refused to issue project licenses due to these concerns, but his successor approved them based on outdated documents and without considering community objections.

Additionally, the petitioners stated that the Vakarai community had faced intimidation and harassment for protesting against the project. Residents were summoned to government inquiries and questioned about their participation in protests and their political affiliations, creating an atmosphere of fear and violating their Fundamental Rights under Articles 14(1)(a), 14(1)(b), and 14(1)(c) of the Constitution. The petitioners contended that the failure to ensure public consultation, transparency, and community participation core principles of environmental governance constituted arbitrary and unreasonable administrative action, further violating Articles 12(1) (equality before the law) and 14(1)(g) (freedom to engage in a lawful occupation)

Invoking the public trust doctrine and constitutional environmental duties, the petitioners argued that the State bears a constitutional responsibility under Article 27(14) to protect and improve the environment, while every citizen has a duty under Article 28(f) to safeguard nature. They cited landmark cases including Bulankulama v. Secretary, Ministry of Industrial Development (2000), Watte Gedara Wijebanda v. Conservator General of Forests (2004), and Centre for Environmental Justice v. Anura Sathurasinghe (CA Writ 291/15), which affirmed the State’s duty as trustee of natural resources for present and future generations. Reference was also made to international environmental conventions ratified by Sri Lanka, such as the Stockholm Declaration (1972), Rio Declaration (1992), Ramsar Convention, and the Paris Agreement, which enshrine the principles of intergenerational equity, the precautionary approach, and the public trust doctrine as part of domestic environmental law.

Accordingly, the petitioners sought relief under Article 126(4) of the Constitution, requesting declarations that their Fundamental Rights have been violated and interim orders to suspend all project approvals, permits, and operations related to the proposed mining and processing activities in Vakarai. They also sought a declaration that the public’s right to access the beach, a res commune, cannot be restricted. The petition urged the Court to recognize that the respondents’ actions and omissions were illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to natural justice, causing grave and irreparable harm to the environment and the welfare of the Vakarai community. The petitioners requested the Supreme Court to issue directions preventing further violations and to affirm the State’s duty as the public guardian of Sri Lanka’s ecological and coastal heritage. This case was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka.