Sri Lanka prides itself on being governed by law, not by press conferences. That principle was reaffirmed on 19th February 2026, when the Court of Appeal intervened in the escalating controversy over whether foreign tourists may lawfully drive tuk-tuks in Sri Lanka using International Driving Permits together with covering permits issued under Sri Lankan law.

In C.A. (Writ) 1154/25, Hon. Justice Dhammika Ganepola and Hon. Justice Adithya Patabendige granted Interim Orders preserving the existing legal framework and restoring the position that prevailed before media reports on or about 20th November 2025 suggested that foreign visitors could no longer drive tuk-tuks on the strength of International Driving Permits.

Sri Lanka is a Contracting State to the 1949 Geneva Convention on Road Traffic. The Convention is founded on reciprocity: member states recognise each other’s International Driving Permits to ensure uniform and predictable cross-border mobility. To give domestic effect to these obligations, Sri Lanka enacted regulations through Gazette No. 11,603 of 1958 under the Motor Car (Convention) Ordinance – regulations that remain valid and in force.

Under that statutory framework, a foreign visitor holding a valid International Driving Permit may lawfully drive in Sri Lanka upon obtaining a local covering permit issued either by the Department of Motor Traffic or by the Automobile Association of Ceylon, which is expressly designated by law for that purpose.

This is not an administrative concession. It is the governing legal scheme.

For decades, tourists have driven tuk-tuks under this regime without controversy. Businesses, such as the Petitioner in this case, have structured operations around it. Hundreds of Sri Lankan families depend on it for livelihood. The framework reflects not only domestic regulation but Sri Lanka’s commitment to international comity –  the mutual respect of rights arising under treaty obligations.

When the matter came before Court, the Bench held that a serious question of public law arises as to whether the impugned decision was made within statutory authority or contrary to the governing legal framework. The Court further held that permitting the directive to operate pending final determination would adversely affect existing permits and business operations, whereas interim relief would merely preserve the status quo ante.

Accordingly, Interim Orders were granted.

The legality of the purported directive will now be tested in Court. Until that determination is made, the law as it stands continues to govern.

Mr. Avindra Rodrigo, President’s Counsel, with Ashiq Hassim and Nishika Fonseka appeared for the Petitioner. Mr. Sanjay Rajaratnam, President’s Counsel, with Edward Jayasinghe appeared for the Automobile Association of Ceylon. Ms. Avanthi Weerakoon, State Counsel, appeared on behalf of the State Respondents, including the Commissioner General of Motor Traffic and the Inspector General of Police.