Right to reply : SC did not refuse early hearing on Adani wind power plants

By Rohan Pethiyagoda

The article captioned ‘Supreme Court refuses early hearing on Adani wind power plants in Sri Lanka’ that appeared on page 9 of the Daily Mirror of August 3, 2024, contained several falsehoods and factual errors, to which I respond as follows. 

“The Supreme Court declined a request for an early hearing of petitions challenging the establishment of Adani Group’s wind power plants in the country”- In fact, no such request for an early hearing was made to the court, whether by the petitioners or the respondents, and as such, the issue of the court declining such a request does not arise.

The adjective ‘China-backed’ precedent to a series of names including that of myself was used. I categorically deny that I am “backed” by anyone, including “China” and challenge you to provide any evidence whatsoever to substantiate this baseless, malicious and defamatory canard.

“Senior Advocates Sanjeewa Jayawardena and Senany Dayaratne representing the WNPS, in case 125/2024, and Dr. Pethiyagoda in case 167/2024, had requested an early hearing date. The bench, however, stated that the dates would be assigned only in March 2025 and declined to issue a stay order at this stage” - It appears that this article was written by a person schooled in India and not Sri Lanka, because it is in India that they have Senior Advocates, while in Sri Lanka we have President’s Counsel. Second, the article stated that the petitioners’ counsel requested an early hearing date.

 In fact, the petitioners’ counsel did no such thing. 

Counsel for the petitioners and the respondents conferred among themselves for mutually convenient dates and the court accommodated these dates within the constraints of its own calendar. At no stage did the petitioners’ counsel request court for “an early hearing date”. 

Third, at no stage did the petitioners’ counsel request court for a stay order. As such, there was no reason for the court to decline to issue a stay order. At no stage in the proceedings was there any reference to a stay order. The mention of a stay order is therefore reposed entirely in the imagination of your reporter. 

Editor’s Note: We regret the error.