Abstract:
The case, Ven. Welimada Dhammadinna Bhikkhuni v Department of Registration of
Persons and others (2025) provides critical insight into the legal and administrative
treatment of Bhikkhunis in Sri Lanka. Despite all citizens having the constitutional
right to identification via a NIC, the legal system has yet to formally recognize the
status of Bhikkhunis on such documentation. This research critically analyses the
contribution of this case to protect and fulfil fundamental rights of Bhikkhunis in Sri
Lanka. Before this case, the Bhikkhunis in Sri Lanka were treated unequally in the
event of issuing NICs by acknowledging their Bhikkhuni status. Bhikkhunis formally
ordained under the Rangiri Dambulu Chapter of the Sangha Sabha are entitled to equal
legal treatment with monks. However, the male monastics (Bhikkhus) routinely
receive such recognition while Bhikkhunis were discriminated. Section 41 of the
Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance 1931 mandates the registration of male monastics
however omits provisions for Bhikkhunis, leaving no statutory mechanism for their
official recognition. Despite this, Section 39A(1) of the Registration of Persons
(Amendment) Act No. 8 of 2016 and Section 39(1) of the Registration of Persons Act
No. 32 of 1968 authorize the collection of verification from any competent source,
which has not been properly applied in the case of Bhikkhunis. The suggestion to use
the title "Sil Matha" instead of "Bhikkhuni" erodes the distinct religious identity of
ordained female monastics and perpetuates systemic inequality. This longstanding
gender-based discrimination in Sri Lanka has not been adequately addressed by the
main Mahanayake throes of the three Niakya’s, who are cited as ultimate Buddhist
religious authorities. This has been a violation of the constitutional rights of
Bhikkhunis including Articles 12(1) [equal protection of law] and 14(1)(e) [right to
freely manifest religion and belief, including through religious identity]. Public
officers’ refusal to recognize Bhikkhuni status on official documentation impaired
both fundamental rights of Bhikkhunis and restricted religious expression and
institutional recognition within Buddhism. This landmark Supreme Court ruling in this
case upheld the constitutional right to equality, recognizing the petitioner as a
Bhikkhuni and directing issuance of a corrected NIC. The majority found gender-based
discrimination, while the dissent cautioned against judicial interference in religious
matters. The judgment sets a vital precedent affirming that valid religious ordination
must be constitutionally respected. It advances gender equality in Sri Lankan
Theravada Buddhism, enabling bhikkhunis to access full civic rights. The case
highlights broader institutional disparities and offers a foundation for future legal
reforms bridging religion, gender, and constitutional protections.
