## Facts

- The Teaching Sisters of the Holy Cross of the Third Order of Saint Francis in Menzingen of Sri Lanka (the Sisters), a Catholic religious congregation, sought incorporation by a private member’s bill presented to Parliament.
- The bill would create a corporation with perpetual succession and legal powers to acquire, hold, and manage property and to operate institutions in Sri Lanka.
- The bill’s objects included an express religious aim: to teach and spread the Catholic religion.
- Alongside the religious aim, the bill contemplated extensive social-service activities, including operating or serving in schools and preschools, nursing homes, medical clinics and hospitals, refugee camps, orphanages, day-care centers/creches, and homes for the aged.
- The contemplated beneficiaries included children, orphans, the sick, the indigent, the destitute, and the elderly—groups argued to be especially vulnerable to pressure.
- Anula Irangani Fernando petitioned the Supreme Court for a pre-enactment constitutional determination under Article 121(1) after the bill was placed on Parliament’s Order Paper.
- The petitioner argued that giving statutory corporate form and powers to an organization whose objects combined religious dissemination with material and institutional assistance risked coercive or inducement-based conversions, contrary to constitutional protections for freedom of thought, conscience, and religion (Article 10) and the right to manifest religion by worship, observance, practice, or teaching (Article 14(1)(e)).
- The petitioner also relied on Article 9, which gives Buddhism the foremost place and assigns the State a duty to safeguard the Buddha Sasana while assuring rights under Articles 10 and 14(1)(e).
- The Attorney-General was given notice and appeared in the proceeding.

## Issues

1. Whether the bill’s stated objects and powers—authorizing a corporation to spread Catholicism while providing education, health care, and welfare services to vulnerable persons—were inconsistent with Articles 10 and 14(1)(e) because they could interfere with others’ freedom of conscience through pressure or material inducement.
2. Whether, in light of Article 9’s constitutional status for Buddhism and the State’s related duties, the State could confer corporate status and statutory powers for religious “propagation” in the manner contemplated by the bill.
3. If the bill was inconsistent with the Constitution, whether it could proceed as drafted or instead required alteration (and, if not altered, whether enactment would be subject to special constitutional voting and approval requirements applicable to unconstitutional bills).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court determined that the bill, as drafted, was inconsistent with the Constitution to the extent it authorized an incorporated body to spread the Catholic religion in a way that could affect the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion of others.
- The Court reaffirmed that the Sri Lankan Constitution protects the right to manifest one’s religion (including through teaching), but it does not recognize a fundamental right to “propagate” religion in the sense of disseminating it to others as part of an organized conversion-oriented project.
- The Court reasoned that even where other constitutional systems recognize a right to propagate religion, that right does not extend to converting another person, because conversion can infringe the other person’s freedom of conscience.
- Given the bill’s explicit religious object coupled with wide-ranging educational and welfare functions directed at children, indigents, and the elderly, the Court accepted the risk that the statutory scheme could facilitate conversion by pressure or inducement.
- The Court therefore concluded that the bill could not proceed in its existing form without curing the constitutional inconsistencies identified in the challenged provisions.

## Legal Principles

- Article 10 protects each person’s freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, including the freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of one’s choice; legal arrangements that interfere with that freedom are constitutionally suspect.
- Article 14(1)(e) protects the right to manifest one’s religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, and teaching; it does not create a constitutional entitlement to propagate religion as an organized effort to spread and secure conversions.
- Conversion-oriented activity that pressures, induces, or exploits dependence—especially through material benefit or institutional control over vulnerable populations—can infringe another person’s freedom of conscience.
- When Parliament confers corporate personality and statutory powers on a religious body, the design of the legal vehicle (objects plus powers plus the context of activities) is relevant to whether the State is enabling conduct inconsistent with constitutional guarantees.
- Article 9’s recognition of Buddhism’s foremost place forms part of the constitutional setting in which state-supported legal mechanisms for religious dissemination are assessed, alongside the duty to assure rights under Articles 10 and 14(1)(e).

## Conclusion

In its Article 121 special determination, the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka held that the proposed incorporation bill was unconstitutional as drafted because it would statutorily authorize a Catholic corporation to spread religion through institutions delivering education and welfare services to vulnerable groups, creating a serious risk of conversion by inducement or pressure and thereby interfering with the constitutionally protected freedom of conscience.


A Bill Titled “Provincial of the Teaching Sisters of the Holy Cross of the Third Order of Saint Francis in Menzingen of Sri Lanka (Incorporation)”, S.C. Special Determination No. 19/2003 (2003)