The Centre for Environmental Justice and the other petitioners bring this case against the Minister of Wildlife and Forest Resources Conservation and the others state respondents over the illegal de-gazetting of the Wedithalathivu Nature Reserve, framing it as an environmental and constitutional emergency of the highest order. The Case is filed on 05th June, 2024. The Wedithalathivu Nature Reserve is a pristine 29,180-hectare protected area off Sri Lanka's northwestern coast and a valuable ecosystem comprising mangroves, seagrass beds, and coral reefs. It is a significant habitat for thousands of migratory birds and the only known habitat of the critically endangered Dugong in Sri Lanka.

The de-gazetting, effected by an extraordinary gazette No.2383/05 dated 06th May 2024, paves the way for a 1000-hectare Aquaculture Industrial Park, a project with a track record of environmental catastrophe. This has the potential to destroy Sri Lanka's largest mangrove ecosystem, a valuable carbon sink and natural cyclone and tsunami barrier. The project risks causing irreversible damage in the form of deforestation, habitat fragmentation, pollution, and introduction of invasive species, which will devastate local artisanal fisheries and push iconic species like the Dugong closer to extinction.

The petition is grounded mainly in the violation of national law, basic tenets of environmental law, and constitutional mandates. They argue that the decision of the 1st Respondent is ultra vires in the sense that it circumvented two mandatory legal requirements under the Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance: prior parliamentary approval and a comprehensive study of the ecological effects. This action is a breach of the Public Trust Doctrine, having failed in its duty as a trustee to protect a natural resource held in trust for the public and for future generations. The decision also ignores the Precautionary Principle, in that it proceeds contrary to the recommendation of expert committees and in spite of the risk of catastrophic and irreversible harm. Furthermore, it is contrary to the doctrine of Inter-Generational Equity since it deprives future generations of this natural heritage and contravenes Sustainable Development. This omission is supplemented by the neglect of the Directive Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Duties contained in Article 27(14) and Article 28(f) of the Constitution, where the state is instructed to protect, preserve, and improve the environment.

In this regard, the petitioners aver that the arbitrary and procedurally flawed act by the state is a violation of the fundamental right to equal protection of the law under Article 12(1) of the Constitution. In their opinion, this decision, which seems politically and economically driven, sets an erroneous precedent that erodes environmental governance and the rule of law, exposing the country's valuable natural ecosystems and its global environmental commitments to jeopardy.