Chief Justice Murdu Fernando and Justice Gamini Amarasekera found that the department’s refusal to use the title ‘bhikkhuni’ despite Ven. Welimada Dhammadinna Bhikkhuni’s ordination under the Rangiri Dambulla Chapter constituted unequal treatment based on gender.
A landmark ruling by the Supreme court, Sri Lanka, last month that could have a major impact on the monastic life of Bhikkunis had gone virtually unnoticed by the mainstream media.
The case was heard before a Supreme Court bench consisting of Chief Justice Murdu Fernando, Justices Gamini Amarasekara and Mahinda Samayawardhena. The petitioners were Ven. Welimada Dhammadinna Bhikkhuni and Ven. Inamaluwe Sri Sumangala Thero, Maha Nayaka of Rangiri Dambulla Chapter of Siyam Maha Nikaya, represented by a legal team led by Navin Marapana, PC. The respondents were the Commissioner General, Department of Registration of Persons; the Commissioner General, Department of Buddhist Affairs; and the Attorney General, represented by Deputy Solicitor General Kanishka de Silva Balapatabendi.
It was presented to the court that there were about 900 Upasampanna Bhikkhunis and 2,200 novice (Samanera) Bhikkhunis belonging to the Rangiri Dambulu Sangha Sabawa. There were more than 3,000 Bhikkhunis belonging to this Chapter residing in 237 Bhikkhuni Aramas, and many novices, Samanera Bhikkhunis, are awaiting ordination. The court observed that, since its commencement in 1998, several Bhikkhuni ordination ceremonies had taken place, and women had become bhikkhunis under the Rangiri Dambulu Chapter.
Sri Lanka’s bhikkhuni lineage had crumpled during the Polonnaruwa period following Saivite Chola invasion in 1017 AD. With the loss of full ordination, women who wished to undertake serious Buddhist practice could only become sil mathas.
Although the bhikkhuni lineage has since been re-established in modern Sri Lanka, it is still not generally recognized by major monastic institutions as reflected in difficulties obtaining ID cards that recognise them as bhikkhunis.
The main issue before the court was whether the state’s refusal to issue the first petitioner a National Identity card recognising her as a Bhikkuni (instead offering the term. ‘sil matha’) -a female renunciant, apparently similar to an anagarika- who observes eight or 10 precepts but has not received full ordination- violated her fundamental rights under article 12 (1) of the Constitution.The first respondent apparently argued against the allegation of violation of fundamental rights by claiming that he did not include the religious status, Bhikkuni, in the NIC to protect Buddhism following Article 9 of the Constitution, which mandates the State to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana.
Chief Justice Murdu Fernando and Justice Gamini Amarasekera found that the department’s refusal to use the title ‘bhikkhuni’ despite Ven. Welimada Dhammadinna Bhikkhuni’s ordination under the Rangiri Dambulla Chapter constituted unequal treatment based on gender.
‘It is obvious that if the first petitioner (the bhikkhuni) had been male, she would not have encountered these difficulties,’ Justice Amarasekera observed. ‘She has been denied recognition as a bhikkhuni, despite being acknowledged as such by the Rangiri Dambulu Buddhist Chapter to which she belongs, an order recognized by the government. Hence, it is clear that her rights under Article 12(1) of the Constitution have been violated by the actions and conduct of the first respondent.’
In its historic ruling the court directed the Commissioner General of the Department of Registration of Persons, under the Ministry of Internal Affairs, to issue a National Identity Card to Ven. Welimada Dhammadinna Bhikkhuni—not as a sil matha, but under her rightful title of Bhikkhuni.
By Don Wijewardana – Wellington
