The petition opposing gender reassignment surgery was dismissed.

The Supreme Court has decided to dismiss, without a hearing, a fundamental rights petition filed requesting the annulment of state circulars and programs that facilitate individuals to change their sexual identity through surgery according to their preference, outside of a biological basis. This petition was filed before the court by Mr. Shantha Jayathilaka, a retired disabled warrant officer of the Sri Lanka Air Force.

The petition was considered before a bench of judges comprising Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena and Supreme Court Justice Arjuna Obeyesekere. The respondents named in this case included the Attorney General, the Minister of Women's Affairs, and others, as well as former Presidents Maithripala Sirisena, Ranil Wickremesinghe, and current President Anura Kumara Dissanayake.

When the petition was considered, Deputy Solicitor General Nirmalan Wigneswaran, appearing for the Attorney General, raised a preliminary objection, stating that the relevant petition had been filed late and essential parties had not been properly named. The Supreme Court, accepting this preliminary objection, refused to hear the petition and took steps to dismiss it.

The petitioner has pointed out that although there are no legal provisions to change gender through medical surgery, a path has been created to change sexual identity based on a medical certificate, according to the guidelines and circulars issued by the Director General of Health Services in 2016. He has alleged that the issuance of new birth certificates and national identity cards by the government for individuals who undergo such transformation is entirely illegal, and that past governments as well as the current government support such actions.

The petitioner further states that allowing such changes in sexual identity based on one's own will paves the way for same-sex marriages, which are contrary to the law. Citing a recent Supreme Court decision that determining gender solely based on individual preference without a referendum is illegal, the petitioner requested the court to declare that his fundamental rights have been violated by this course of action and to annul all related circulars and state programs.