Court of Appeal proposes possibility of administrative settlement in writ applications filed by national cricketers

The petitions filed by two national male cricket captains and the female cricketers were taken up yesterday for argument before Court of Appeal President Justice Rohantha Abeysuriya, PC, and Justice Priyantha Fernando.

The petitioners, Charith Asalanka and Dhananjaya de Silva, as the respective captains of the One Day International and Twenty20 cricket teams and the Test team, had challenged the Inland Revenue Department’s decision to classify Sri Lanka’s national cricketers as employees of Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC). The petition was authorised by several other players including Angelo Mathews, Dinesh Chandimal, Wanindu Hasaranga, Mahesh Theekshana, Kusal Mendis, and Kusal Perera.

The cricketers challenged the Inland Revenue Department’s decision on the basis that it had retrospectively imposed Advance Personal Income Tax (APIT) from 2023 by classifying them as employees.

Counsel for the petitioners, Nishan Sydney Premathiratne, commenced submissions on the grounds that the decision was erroneous and arbitrary. He submitted that the Inland Revenue Department had classified cricketers as employees on the basis that their scope of duties could be controlled, that they were subject to the rules of SLC, and that they did not bear risk of remuneration.

Premathiratne argued that cricketers discharge their duties independently on the field, making spontaneous decisions without control or direction from anyone else, and therefore cannot be regarded as employees. He added that even independent service providers, such as lawyers, doctors, accountants, and engineers, are subject to professional rules but are still recognised by law as independent. He submitted that, similarly, being governed by the rules of the game does not make cricketers employees.

He further submitted that the contractual arrangements between the cricketers and SLC had continued for many years without any such classification, and that some cricketers are also employed elsewhere, including in the armed forces. The reclassification for tax purposes, therefore, was arbitrary. He also contended that the decision had been made without prior notice or hearing, violating the principles of natural justice, and that the cricketers do not receive any employment benefits.

During the hearing, the Court of Appeal, while emphasising that it did not favour any party, proposed that the matter be resolved through a meeting among stakeholders in the interest of Sri Lanka cricket.

Counsel for Sri Lanka Cricket, President’s Counsel Kuvera de Soyza, also submitted that the Inland Revenue Department’s decision was arbitrary and illegal, and that it could have a ripple effect on the broader cricketing structure.

The matter was fixed for further hearing and continuation of submissions by the petitioners, SLC, and the Inland Revenue Department on 18 and 27 November, and 2 December.

Counsel Nishan Sydney Premathiratne appeared with Attorneys Shenali Dias and Sidath Gajanayaka, on the instructions of Gamindu Karunasena, for the petitioners representing the male cricketers, Charith Asalanka and Dhananjaya de Silva.

President’s Counsel Dr. Harsha Cabral appeared with Attorneys Vikum Jayasinghe and Manith Dasanayake, on the instructions of Gamindu Karunasena, for the petitioners representing the female cricketers, Chamari Athapaththu and Anushka Sanjeewani.

President’s Counsel Kuvera de Soyza appeared with Attorney Sajana de Soyza, on the instructions of Sanjay Fonseka, for Sri Lanka Cricket.

Deputy Solicitor General Manohara Jayasinghe appeared for the State.