The Sri Lankan government’s proposed new counterterrorism legislation allows wide scope for abuse and poses serious threats to human rights, Amnesty International has said in a legal analysis.

Despite some improvements on the previous white paper of the law issued in late 2025, the Protection of the State from Terrorism bill, which will replace the repressive and long-standing Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), retains an overly broad and ambiguous definition of terrorism that leaves room for arbitrary interpretation and the potential criminalization of dissent, protest, and the activities of civil society organisations.

The bill, which was tabled on 6 October, is now before the Supreme Court to check its compatibility with Sri Lanka’s Constitution. Depending on the Supreme Court’s determination, the law is set to be debated by Sri Lanka’s parliament in the coming weeks.

“Any attempt to revise a counterterror law which has time and time again been weaponised by the authorities against dissent, government critics, and minorities must be given the utmost scrutiny. The new bill must break with this legacy of abuse, not give the authorities new tools to silence dissent,” said Smriti Singh, Amnesty International’s South Asia Director.

“Sri Lanka’s history of abusing such legislation makes robust, enforceable safeguards essential, and these remain inadequately addressed in the bill, sparking serious human rights concerns.”

In addition to the overbroad definition of terrorism, the bill permits detention for up to one year without charge, alongside the possibility of up to one year of pretrial detention – a cumulation of two years in detention even before the start of a trial. This breaches the right to be free from arbitrary detention, the presumption of innocence, and the right to be tried within a reasonable time.

“Allowing a person to be detained for up to a year before being charged, with the prospect of a further year in pretrial detention, raises grave concerns about arbitrary detention and the right to a fair trial. No one should have to spend years in detention while the state delays bringing a case to trial,” said Smriti Singh.

“We urge Sri Lanka’s parliament to withdraw this bill and reform the law in line with international human rights law and standards. Until this is done, the PTA should not be misused further.”

Amnesty International is calling on Sri Lanka’s authorities to reform the law using key benchmarks provided to Sri Lanka by UN special rapporteurs to enable substantive reform of the PTA.

The bill’s definition of terrorism is narrower compared with the bill’s earlier draft and incorporates additional safeguards. For example, the initial draft criminalized certain acts done with the purpose of “infringing on the sovereignty of Sri Lanka”, without a clear definition of what would constitute such intent. This has been removed in the updated bill, which is welcome.

However, Amnesty International is concerned that the offence of terrorism, as drafted in the bill, remains too broad and falls below the standards required under international law.

Firstly, section 3(4) of the bill does not expressly exclude protests, advocacy, dissent, industrial action, or humanitarian and medical assistance from the scope of terrorism offences. Instead, it merely states that such conduct is not, by itself, sufficient to establish the required elements of an offence. This caveat falls short of a clear safeguard as it leaves room for broad interpretation. The law should clearly state that protected activities, such as protests and advocacy, cannot be treated as terrorism offences.

Secondly, Amnesty International does not consider that offences only causing a “likelihood” of “substantial economic loss”, as laid down in the new bill, meet the high hurt threshold required for an offence to constitute terrorism.

The tabled bill introduces various new safeguards compared to the 2025 white paper. These include judicial oversight of any attempt by the Executive to proscribe an organization and the establishment of a review committee to examine the legality of detention orders. However, the committee’s members will be appointed by the Minister of Defence, a member of the cabinet, raising serious questions about its independence.

“A review committee appointed by a minister cannot provide the necessary assurance of independent scrutiny of detention orders. It is the criminal justice system, with the safeguards of a fair criminal trial, that should determine whether a person is guilty of a crime and should be sentenced,” said Smriti Singh.

Other human rights concerns around the bill raised previously by Amnesty International remain. These include the extension of police powers to armed forces and coast guards; as well as provisions permitting the Attorney General, with High Court approval, to defer prosecutions or suspend trials for up to 20 years in certain cases. Rather than proceeding to trial, suspects may agree to conditions such as apologies or reparations, while remaining exposed to the prospect of prosecution for decades. This raises concerns regarding accountability, victims’ right to justice, and the right of accused persons to legal certainty and a timely determination of criminal charges.

The Acting Commissioner General of Prisons has issued an Extraordinary Gazette notification outlining the procedures to be followed regarding the removal of monastic robes when a Buddhist monk is imprisoned.

The relevant Gazette notification was issued by Acting Commissioner General of Prisons Prasad Hemantha Kumara, with the approval of the Minister of Justice.

Accordingly, several Standing Orders of the Department of Prisons have been amended.

When a Buddhist monk is admitted to prison as an inmate, the Department of Buddhist Affairs must inform the relevant Buddhist Chapter or Sect regarding the removal of the monastic robes worn by the monk up to that point.

“356A. Where a Buddhist monk is imprisoned, the Commissioner of Prisons shall consult the Department of Buddhist Affairs regarding the removal of the robes worn by such monk at the time of imprisonment, and the Department of Buddhist Affairs shall inform the relevant Nikaya or Chapter accordingly and notify the Commissioner of Prisons of the actions taken by the Nikaya or Chapter regarding the removal of such robes within ten days. Where no response regarding the actions to be taken is received within that period, the Commissioner of Prisons may take the necessary action in accordance with the relevant provisions:

Provided that the preceding provisions shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to the imprisonment of any priest of any other religion.”

The measures taken by the relevant Chapter or Sect regarding the removal of robes must be communicated to the Commissioner of Prisons through the Department of Buddhist Affairs within ten days. The Gazette notification further states that if no response is received within this period, the Commissioner of Prisons may proceed in accordance with the relevant provisions.

When an imprisoned monk is released from prison, permission must be granted for him to wear the same robes he was wearing at the time of his imprisonment. However, if the relevant Chapter or Sect has not granted approval for him to wear robes in this manner, the Commissioner of Prisons must act in accordance with the relevant directives.

For the purpose of obtaining the necessary approval from the relevant Chapter or Sect, the Commissioner of Prisons must notify the Department of Buddhist Affairs within seven (07) working days from the date of imprisonment.

The Gazette notification further states that these orders shall also apply, with the necessary modifications, when a member of the clergy belonging to another religion is admitted to prison or released.

Colombo High Court Judge Buddhika C. Ragala said the court had no authority to issue an order to have Bodu Bala Sena General Secretary Ven. Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara Thera, who is in prison custody, dressed in robes again.

The judge questioned in open court today whether all other imprisoned Buddhist monks should also be dressed in robes by the Mahanayake Theras before being produced in court.

The matter arose when the case against Gnanasara Thera over allegations that he undermined communal harmony by making a statement insulting Islam was called before the judge.

Prison officials produced the accused monk remotely through a WhatsApp video call.

Explaining the arrangements, the judge noted that, after Gnanasara Thera was imprisoned under a sentencing order issued by the Court of Appeal, prison officials had removed his robes, dressed him in white clothing and produced him in court for other proceedings.

The judge said prison officials had informed the court through a motion filed two days earlier that the accused would appear remotely to prevent possible unrest, following agitated behavior by a group of Buddhist monks over the incident.

Appearing for Gnanasara Thera, attorney Ashoka Weerasuriya told the court that the Mahanayake Thera of the Kotte Chapter had written to prison authorities requesting that the monk be ceremonially dressed in robes again without violating prison regulations. However, no response had yet been received, he said.

The lawyer therefore requested that the necessary steps be taken to have Gnanasara Thera ceremonially dressed in robes again.

Rejecting the request, Judge Ragala emphasized that the court had no authority to issue any order concerning the removal of the accused’s robes.

The judge said many other Buddhist monks were serving prison sentences after being convicted of various offenses. He questioned whether all of them would have to be dressed in robes by the Mahanayake Theras before being produced for further court proceedings.

The judge also directed both parties to inform the court at the next hearing whether they intended to enter into a plea agreement under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, No. 50 of 2024.

After considering the submissions, the court fixed the next hearing for January 29, 2027.

The long-standing friendship between Sri Lanka and China could soon enter an exciting new chapter, with fresh discussions focusing on everything from Buddhist education and cinema to literature and cultural heritage preservation.

A special meeting between Wei Huaxiang, Ambassador of the People’s Republic of China to Sri Lanka, and Dr. Hiniduma Sunil Senevi, Minister of Buddha Sasana, Religious and Cultural Affairs, was held at the ministry premises yesterday, where both sides explored new avenues to strengthen religious and cultural cooperation between the two countries.

Against the backdrop of centuries-old historical and cultural links, the talks centered on expanding exchanges that could bring tangible benefits to students, artists, academics and cultural institutions in both nations.

Among the key proposals discussed were the introduction of film exchange programmes between Sri Lanka and China, creating opportunities for audiences in both countries to experience each other’s cinematic achievements while expanding cultural understanding through the arts.

The discussions also focused on providing scholarships for Sri Lankan students to pursue Buddhist studies in China, a move that could further strengthen educational and spiritual ties between the two nations while creating new academic pathways for local scholars.

Officials additionally exchanged views on the translation and exchange of literary works, opening the door for greater access to the rich literary traditions of both countries and helping cultural knowledge cross linguistic boundaries.

Katchatheevu, a barren islet between Sri Lanka’s Delft Island and India’s Rameswaram, sprouts up

in the news on and off whenever the fisheries issue between Sri Lanka and India, Tamil Nadu to be specific, crops up following arrests of fishermen or any untoward incident involved. Recently, it surfaced in the public domain after the Indian Supreme Court, in an interim, procedural and humanitarian order, cautioned the Union and Tamil Nadu Governments against Tamil Nadu fishermen crossing the International Maritime Boundary Line for fishing in Sri Lanka’s territorial waters.
Katchatheevu was placed on the Sri Lankan side in keeping with the demarcation of maritime boundary lines under the agreement signed in June, 1974. Another agreement signed in March 1976 stipulated boundary lines in the Gulf of Mannar and the Bay of Bengal. The latest agreement bars fishermen from crossing each country’s waters. Besides, Article 5 of the 1974 agreement allows Indian fishermen and pilgrims to visit the islet without travel documents. Nevertheless, no fishing right has been envisaged in the agreement.

Indian Supreme Court’s latest ruling has invited a new public discourse to find a way out of this decades-long problem. A roundtable discussion organised by Pathfinder Foundation offered a platform for a diverse set of opinions.

It centred on the proposal that Sri Lanka should assert its presence in the islet in terms of marine research activities.

Pathfinder Foundation’s Chairman Bernard Goonetilleke, in his presentation of proposals for a sustainable solution to the crisis, envisaged the establishment of a fisheries research station on Katchatheevu, with a mandate to conduct fisheries-related research and contribute to the sustainable management of marine resources in the surrounding waters. He said that the proposal was intended to serve a practical purpose beyond the continuing political debate over the island’s status.

It will create an opportunity to improve scientific understanding of fish stocks, marine ecosystems and sustainable fishing practices in the Palk Bay and adjacent waters. Establishing a research facility will also provide a continuing Sri Lankan institutional presence on the island, consistent with Sri Lanka’s position under the existing India–Sri Lanka maritime arrangements. Research activities could include monitoring fish stocks, studying the effects of bottom trawling, assessing marine habitats and identifying approaches to restoring depleted fisheries resources. The station could also provide a platform for scientific cooperation between Sri Lankan and Indian fisheries researchers, where mutually agreed arrangements make such cooperation possible. Despite the potential benefits, the Sri Lankan Government did not follow up on the proposal, according to him.

However, former Foreign Secretary Ravinatha Aryasinha held different views in this regard and laid emphasis more on a political approach with the involvement of affected communities to find a lasting solution.

Mr Aryasinha, who is also the Executive Director of the Regional Centre for Security Studies (RCSS) said the controversy surrounding Katchatheevu is often reduced to a dispute over Indian fishermen crossing the maritime boundary line into Sri Lankan waters.

Referring to the historical context, he said that the agreement involved not only the transfer of Katchatheevu but also the Wadge Bank, a maritime area located off the southern tip of India near Kanyakumari.

The point is that, having exhausted the fisheries resources in the Wadge Bank, the pressure is now shifting elsewhere. These are natural processes, and one must understand them,” he said.

Asserting that Tamil Nadu political authorities can possibly act differently to India’s Supreme Court’s order, he said, “I find it difficult to understand why this issue should be treated as inseparable from Katchatheevu. Linking a solution to the fisheries problem with Katchatheevu could amount to fishing in troubled waters. Technological innovations, experimental fishing methods and improved fisheries-management practices can be introduced without involving Katchatheevu. There is no compelling reason why the island should become the focal point of efforts to resolve a problem that can be addressed through other practical measures.”
He said, “I sense that this issue needs to be resolved through dialogue between the governments in New Delhi and Colombo, while also engaging the Tamil Nadu government and the people of Jaffna. After all, this is a people’s issue on both sides of the Palk Strait. There is strong sentiment in Jaffna over the matter, notwithstanding the close and fraternal relations between the people on both sides.

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Vijay may bring a different political perspective to the issue, given that he leads a party outside the established DMK and AIADMK political establishments. While his political approach and relationship with the Union Government will become clearer over time, his leadership could provide an opportunity to examine the fisheries dispute and the Katchatheevu question as two distinct issues, according to him.

In response, Mr Goonetilleke from Pathfinder Foundation, however, said that there was a suggestion in the past for undertaking joint research involving NARA on Sri Lankan side and the Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute of Cochin.

“We don’t have the official records of the meeting, but the available information says that this proposal has come forward. There was an understanding in principle to think about this kind of joint activity. The particular research centre is located at Aadampur,” he said.

“It is very interesting to examine the details of the institute. It is a 92-acre facility undertaking research in various areas, including fisheries, seaweed cultivation and alternative livelihoods for fishing communities. This presents an opportunity for both sides to work together and jointly engage in such research,” he said.
If there is an understanding between the two sides to collaborate in these areas, the Tamil Nadu authorities and the public would also recognise that the objective of such research is to protect the health and well-being of the Bay of Bengal and its marine resources, and nothing else,” he added.

We have to be strategic – Nilantha Ilangamuwa

Journalist and analyst Nilantha Ilangamuwa said the long-held notion that “India’s problem is not our problem, and our problem is not India’s problem” was impractical and unrealistic, as it allowed the two countries to evade their responsibilities. “We are neighbours and have to act strategically. If you are suggesting the establishment of a third-party apolitical research facility there, it would be a proactive approach on our part,” he said.
He said such a mechanism could prove useful in the years ahead, as developments in India’s political and legal landscape could have implications for Sri Lanka.
“Some of these matters could find their way into future reports and judgements, whether in the coming years or later. Perhaps this could happen after the Modi government; nobody knows how Indian politics will evolve. In my opinion, establishing a proactive mechanism on the Sri Lankan side would be important and useful, particularly in light of the insights discussed,” he said.

Common ground the way out, India has no intention to take over Katchatheevu

Prof. Jayanath Colombage, a former Navy Commander and Foreign Secretary of Sri Lanka, said Katchatheevu had become an additional burden on the Sri Lanka Navy, which is responsible for maintaining a presence around the island. “There is a small Navy contingent there during normal times. There is no separate budget for it; the expenditure is entirely borne by the Sri Lankan Government as part of the Navy’s Northern Command. The Navy maintains a presence on all the islands, including Delft, Nainativu, Analaitivu, Eluvaitivu, Karaitivu, Kayts and Mandaitivu. Further south, we also have Pooneryn, Talaimannar and Mannar,” he said.
Prof. Colombage agreed with Ambassador Aryasinha that establishing a research centre on Katchatheevu could complicate the issue. However, he expressed optimism that the Indian central government had no intention of reclaiming the island.

“There is no historical evidence to suggest that India exercised control over Katchatheevu. Even if we consider the historical evidence, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, adopted in 1982, provides the contemporary legal framework. Historical evidence is important in law, but it has to be considered within the applicable legal framework.

“In the fisheries sector, the argument is that fishermen traditionally operated in these waters. However, traditional fishing practices do not, by themselves, determine sovereignty over territory or override established maritime boundaries. A similar argument has arisen in the South China Sea, where historical fishing activities have been invoked in disputes over maritime rights,” he said.

He stressed that Sri Lanka should not antagonise India.

Bottom trawling takes place away from Katchatheevu

He, however, said that harmful bottom trawling takes place away from the islet in Sri Lankan waters as the fish stocks on the Indian side of the sea had been exhausted at the moment. Emphasising the need for a middle ground to resolve this issue, he said that the introduction of steel-hulled boats in place of wooden-hulled boats in Tamil Nadu worsened the problem, affecting local fishermen.

“If a small, 17-foot fibreglass dinghy collides with a steel-hulled boat, the consequences could be devastating for the smaller vessel. Another practical problem is that when steel trawlers cross fishing nets laid by local fishermen, the entire net can be destroyed.

These are some of the practical difficulties fishermen face. The real objective, however, is to find common ground without antagonising India. We have goodwill between the two countries, so why can’t we use it to resolve this issue?” he asked.

The Supreme Court’s decision also referred to the excellent relationship between India and its neighbour, Sri Lanka. That is an important consideration. Just as India should take into account the need to preserve its excellent relations with Sri Lanka, we too must be mindful of the importance of not antagonising India. We should use the goodwill that exists between the two countries to find a mutually acceptable solution, he said.

600 prawn processing plants in Tamil Nadu

In an obvious reference to how Tamil Nadu businessmen benefit from poaching in Sri Lankan waters, he said that there are about 600 prawn processing plants in Tamil Nadu exporting produce to the markets in the European Union.
“Where is the main export market? Europe. Now, according to IUU fishing regulations, you have to declare where you catch fish. So what do they say? Indian Ocean prawns. Right? So, I think we have to find a solution rather than allowing it to go for another 50 years.
We have to understand the law, the practicalities of it and go for a solution. Our job is not to find a solution, but make some recommendations.

Reservoir of goodwill

Sri Lanka and India have close ties. India extended vital economic assistance to Sri Lanka in the wake of the 2022 economic crisis. The time is opportune for the sustainable resolution of this issue without making it a permanent irritant to bilateral relations.

Former President Maithripala Sirisena has claimed that officials at the Presidential Secretariat misled him during the process of granting a presidential pardon to Ven. Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara Thera, resulting in a technical error that eventually led to the monk’s reimprisonment.

In a statement issued on October 19, Sirisena said he had studied a copy of the relevant court judgment and understood that a technical defect in documents submitted by the Presidential Secretariat had contributed to the court’s decision.

He said Gnanasara Thera had faced two cases before the Homagama Magistrate’s Court, identified as B 7417/10 and 40042.

According to Sirisena, the additional senior secretary in charge of legal affairs at the Presidential Secretariat had informed him that approval from the Ministry of Justice and Prisons was required in connection with the pardon.

However, he alleged that the necessary documents were never forwarded to the ministry and that his signature was obtained without securing the required approval.

“This was misleading me,” Sirisena said.

The former President claimed that the error committed by officials during his presidency had ultimately resulted in Gnanasara Thera being imprisoned again, following legal proceedings initiated through a complaint by Sandya Ekneligoda involving an organization associated with Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu.

Sirisena said he respected the court’s decision and accepted that the judgment was correct.

He also apologized to the Buddhist clergy for the mistake, although he maintained that it had been committed by officials serving under his administration.

The former President said he issued the statement following inquiries from Buddhist monks, journalists and members of the public seeking clarification about the technical error that affected the presidential pardon.