The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka heard counsel for Petitioners in support of the FR filed against the grant of the Paget road residence for the use of former President Maithripala Sirisena on the basis that the decision was taken by the cabinet while he was in office and hence resulted in a conflict of interest, and on the basis that the house was excessive for an ex-president and more suitable for a sitting head of state, The Morning learns. Additionally, the court granted leave to proceed on the alleged infringement of Article 12(1), and also directed the relevant secretaries to produce the relevant documents, pursuant to which Court would consider whether to also grant the interim relief prayed by the petitioners. Thereafter, the case is to be resumed on the 29th of March 2022. The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) and its Executive Director, Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu filed a fundamental rights application challenging the decision of the Cabinet of Ministers to allow President Maithripala Sirisena the continuous use of the residence currently used by him, and to cover the costs associated with same. In their Petition, the Petitioners stated that the residence occupied by President Maithripala Sirisena on Mahagama Sekara Mawatha (also referred to by some as Paget Road) is of great financial value and is a valuable asset of the Country. The benefits received by former President’s and their widows are regulated by the Presidents Entitlements Act, No. 4 of 1986. CPA stated that, the Supreme Court has previously recognised that the terms of the Presidents Entitlements Act, have to be strictly interpreted and applied. As such the CPA argued that, the allocation of a public asset of such financial value for the personal use of a former President who is no longer carrying out the functions of a Head of State is irrational, arbitrary and illegal, especially because the said residence was designed/constructed in a manner befitting a President / Head of State. CPA further argued it is wrong for the Cabinet of Ministers to decide on the benefits of a retiring President before s/he ceases to hold office. Because of these reasons, CPA contended that the fundamental rights of the Petitioners’ and the fundamental rights of the citizens of Sri Lanka guaranteed under Article 12(1) [Right to Equality] of the Constitution have been violated by the above-mentioned decision made by the Cabinet of Ministers.