The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL), by filing a motion before the Supreme Court today, informed that it will not be tendering the post-hearing written submissions in connection with its Special Determination applications, citing circumstances including the court’s decision to refuse the petitioners an oral right of reply after the Attorney General’s oral submissions during last Wednesday’s (2) hearings.The Daily Mirror learnt that most of the other petitioners, following the BASL’s lead, will not tender their post-hearing written submissions.

The motion, filed in S.C. (S.D.) No. 47/2026 by BASL President Rajeev Amarasuriya and Secretary Nalin De Silva against the Attorney General, cites several circumstances, including the Court’s decision to refuse the petitioners an oral right of reply after the Solicitor General’s submissions during the hearing on September 2, 2026.According to the motion, the petitioners had earlier sought the constitution of a Full Court comprising all judges of the Supreme Court to hear the matter, citing potential issues of conflict of interest or the appearance thereof involving all judges, including the Chief Justice. They argued that nominating the entire Bench would overcome any such concerns and negate perceptions that particular judges had been selected. The request, supported by counsel for most other petitioners, was rejected by the Bench without reasons being assigned.

Hearings commenced on 1st of September and continued till 10.30 p.m., resuming the next day at 10.00 am. Petitioners made initial submissions first, as the Solicitor General indicated he would address court after the petitioners and intervenients supporting the Bill. Intervenients and the Solicitor General then made submissions explaining the rationale and justification for the Bill. No policy document had been made available to the petitioners. The Solicitor General concluded around 5.30 pm on 2nd of September.

Counsel for the petitioners sought to exercise their oral right of reply but were refused. The motion states that the petitioners were thereby denied the opportunity to orally meet the State’s submissions or to clarify certain questions put to the Solicitor General by the judges. It asserts that, in this instance, only the oral right of reply would have enabled an effective response to the State’s arguments.

The motion was signed by Attorney-at-Law Ramzi Bacha on behalf of the petitioners.Meanwhile, Commonwealth Lawyers Association president Stevan Tiru, who was present in court as an observer, told the media that it is unusual to see the right of reply being denied in such an important matter. He also expressed concern over the rejection of the request for a full bench of all sitting judges and the non-inclusion of senior judges in the hearing. Tiru added that the Commonwealth Lawyers Association expects to issue a report based on these observations.