The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka in SC FR 218/2013 addressed a landmark Fundamental Rights application concerning religious identity and gender equality, specifically the recognition of Bhikkhunis (female Buddhist monks) in State-issued identity documentation.

⸻

Background
• Petitioners:
1. Ven. Welimada Dhammadinna Bhikkhuni, a female monastic ordained in the Rangiri Dambulla Chapter.
2. Ven. Inamaluwe Sri Sumangala Thero, the Mahanayake of the Rangiri Dambulla Chapter, a recognized Buddhist order in Sri Lanka.
• Respondents:
• Officials from the Department of Registration of Persons and the Department of Buddhist Affairs, and the Attorney General.
• Core Issue: Whether the State’s refusal to issue a National Identity Card (NIC) recognizing the 1st Petitioner as a “Bhikkhuni” (instead offering the term “Sil Matha”) violated her fundamental rights under Article 12(1) of the Constitution (Right to Equality).

⸻

Majority Judgment (Justice E.A.G.R. Amarasekara)

Key Findings:
1. De Facto Existence of Bhikkhuni Order:
• The Rangiri Dambulla Chapter has ordained women as Bhikkhunis since 1998.
• Over 3,000 female monastics exist under this chapter across 237 Bhikkhuni Aramas.
• Other State institutions (e.g., Immigration, Education) have already recognized the term “Bhikkhuni” in documents.
2. Religious Autonomy and Fundamental Rights:
• Article 14(1)(e) guarantees freedom to practice one’s religion.
• The inaction by Mahanayake Theros of other Nikayas to discipline the Rangiri Dambulla Chapter implies that it operates with a degree of autonomy.
• The State cannot align itself with the doctrinal views of one sect over another, especially where no consensus exists.
3. Discrimination and Legitimate Expectation:
• The 1st Petitioner had a legitimate expectation based on prior issuance of NICs with “Bhikkhuni”.
• The requirement for registration under the Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance (which does not cover Bhikkhunis) was held to be an arbitrary barrier.
• The 1st Respondent’s action of refusing the NIC based on non-registration amounted to discrimination, especially since Bhikkhus did not face such obstacles.
4. Violation of Article 12(1):
• The refusal to issue the NIC as requested was a violation of the 1st Petitioner’s right to equal treatment.
• The State’s actions were found to be influenced by certain religious authorities without legal basis.

Relief Granted:
• The Court ordered the issuance of a NIC identifying the 1st Petitioner as a “Bhikkhuni”.
• Application allowed with costs.

⸻

Dissenting Opinion (Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena)

Main Points:
1. Ecclesiastical Nature of the Issue:
• The recognition of Bhikkhunis is a religious doctrinal matter, not one for courts to resolve through a Fundamental Rights application.
• The court should not override the collective views of the main Nikayas (Malwathu, Asgiri, Amarapura, Ramanna), which oppose the revival of the Bhikkhuni Sasanaya.
2. State’s Duty to Foster Buddhism (Article 9):
• Recognizing Bhikkhunis without broader religious consensus may conflict with the State’s duty to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana.
• The procedure followed by the Respondents (consultation with Mahanayake Theros) was deemed reasonable and lawful.
3. Registration Law & Status:
• The Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance does not recognize Bhikkhunis.
• The term “Bhikkhuni” is not defined in law and its inclusion in State documents could misrepresent religious status.
4. Conclusion:
• No violation of Article 12(1) was found.
• The petition should be dismissed.

⸻

Chief Justice’s Position
• Chief Justice Murdu N.B. Fernando concurred with the majority.

⸻

Legal Significance
• Affirms gender equality and religious freedom within the framework of Sri Lanka’s Constitution.
• Establishes that State identity documentation must reflect actual, recognized religious status, even if contested by segments of religious authority.
• Limits the influence of religious orthodoxy in State administrative functions.