Lawyer Senaka Weeraratna’s prominent role in campaigns against noise pollution including becoming the intervenient litigant in the landmark noise pollution case Ashik v Bandula
Posted on January 1st, 2026
AI Overview
Senaka Weeraratna is an Attorney-at-Law in Sri Lanka who has been a key figure in legal actions against noise pollution. He notably served as an
intervenient litigant (8th respondent) in the landmark 2007 case Ashik v. Bandula and Others.
Role in Ashik v. Bandula (2007)
In this case, which initially centered on loudspeaker restrictions at a mosque in Weligama, Senaka Weeraratna intervened to represent the interests of the general public affected by noise.
- Legal Argument: He contended that the unrestricted use of loudspeakers violates the fundamental rights of the public, specifically the right to silence and the right to quiet enjoyment of property.
- Captive Listeners: He argued that excessive noise creates “captive listeners” of people from other religious faiths, infringing on their own rights.
- Personal Experience: His intervention was partly based on his personal experience as a resident of a residential area in Colombo where noise from a nearby place of worship disturbed the community.
Impact of the Campaign
The resulting Supreme Court judgment, delivered by Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva, established significant precedents for noise control in Sri Lanka that remain relevant in 2026:
- Time Restrictions: It prohibited the use of loudspeakers between 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM, except for special events with prior permission.
- Decibel Limits: It reinforced that noise during the day (6:00 AM to 10:00 PM) must not extend beyond the precincts of the premises.
- Public Nuisance: The court ruled that religious practices do not excuse public nuisance or the annoyance of the general public.
Weeraratna’s continued advocacy focuses on the enforcement of these standards by the police and the Central Environmental Authority (CEA) to protect public health and environmental quality.
Courtesy: AI Overview
See also
1) Chief Justice Sarath Silva’s monumental Judgement in the Ashik v Bandula case.
Held: Per Sarath N. Silva C.J. “A perceived convenience or advantage to some based on a religious practice cannot be the excuse for a public nuisance which causes annoyance to the public or to the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity.”
2) Justice Samayawardhena Committee report
In 2023, the Minister of Justice appointed a committee chaired by Justice Mahinda Samayawardhena, Judge of the Supreme Court, to review laws and regulations related to noise pollution in Sri Lanka to bring them on par with global standard setting.
Members included Parinda Ranasinghe, the present Attorney-General, Director General of the Central Environmental Authority and the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Legal).
The committee submitted its report in March 2024.
It reviewed existing laws and regulations and draft regulations on noise emission prepared by the Ministry of Environment.
The committee also referred to global standards and internationally accepted best practices.
The committee’s recommendations cover varied forms of noise emission.
The committee stated that over the past decade, there has been a significant surge in environmental concerns, particularly regarding the escalating crisis impacting our climate and, as a result, the state of human life itself.
The World Health Organization states that excessive noise endangers human health by increasing the risk of diseases such as ischemic heart disease, hypertension, sleep disturbance, hearing impairment, tinnitus, cognitive impairment, adverse birth outcomes and mental health problems.
According to the National Geographic Society, noise pollution affects animals’ ability to survive as they use sound to navigate, find food, attract mates, and avoid predators.
The committee was of the view that noise pollution laws and regulations in the country should be on par with international standards.
The most important recommendation of the Justice Samayawardhena Committee relevant to our discussion is that noise pollution in Sri Lanka should primarily be regulated in accordance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Ashik v. Bandula.
Police inaction
One of the main reasons for the continuing noise pollution via loudspeakers is Police inaction.
The Facebook page of the National Coalition Against Noise Pollution is replete with posts giving instances of inaction by the Police.
Interactions with Police personnel show that they have not been adequately briefed on the judgment of the Supreme Court and their own IGP’s circulars.
A typical response when a complaint is made is that the organisers of the event causing noise would be asked to ‘reduce’ the sound.
That the judgment and the circulars require that noise emitted should not extend beyond the precincts of the particular premises is not known to almost all officers.
The Weligama Police need to be congratulated for taking action against the disco owners who violated the conditions of the permit.
It is interesting to note that Ashik v. Bandula also resulted from the refusal of the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Weligama Police, himself a Muslim as the Supreme Court observed, to issue a loudspeaker permit to a mosque due to complaints that there was excessive noise from mosques.
Soon after the Weligama incident, Acting IGP Priyantha Weerasinghe instructed the Kiribathgoda Police to order the Kiribathgoda United Traders Association to desist from using loudspeakers to advertise their businesses, causing inconvenience to residents of the area.
This followed complaints by the Viharadhipathi of the local temple and residents.
One hopes that these instances are not isolated and that the Police will follow the Supreme Court judgment and the IGP’s circulars to the letter.
Victims of noise pollution and everyone concerned about ensuring a clean environment will surely hope that saner counsel will prevail and that the government will not attempt to change the status quo based on a Supreme Court judgment that has been widely welcomed and is in consonance with international best practices.
Any such change will violate the fundamental rights to equality and equal protection of the law guaranteed by Article 12(1) of the Constitution and the freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment guaranteed by Article 11. (ColomboFeb14/2025)