Sri Lanka’s Free Media Movement (FMM) has filed a fundamental rights petition in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the government’s proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill, arguing that several provisions could undermine media freedom, fundamental rights and democratic accountability.
The petition, numbered SC/SD/132/2026, was filed on 16 October by Udaya Kalupathirana and Hana Ibrahim, members of the FMM’s executive committee. Senior Counsel Lakshan Dias represented the petitioners, with the assistance of lawyers Nimansa Meetiagoda and Yashodhara Illangasinghe.
The respondents named in the case are the Attorney-General, Harshana Nanayakkara, Minister of Justice and National Integration, and Ananda Wijepala, Minister of Public Security and Parliamentary Affairs.
The FMM argues that provisions of the proposed legislation could expose journalists to serious criminal charges for conducting investigative reporting in the public interest. It has raised particular concerns about sections 3(1), 3(2) and 9, which it says define terrorism and terrorist publications in ambiguous terms.
According to the petitioners, these definitions could place journalists reporting on matters of legitimate public interest at risk of severe penalties, including life imprisonment and fines of up to 20 million rupees. The organisation contends that the breadth of the proposed offences could create uncertainty over which forms of reporting might attract criminal liability.
The petition also raises concerns about the confidentiality of journalistic sources and the protection of whistleblowers. The FMM says section 15 makes the failure to report information an offence, while the proposed legislation does not provide adequate safeguards for confidential media sources or individuals who disclose information in the public interest.
The organisation argues that these provisions could seriously undermine investigative journalism by placing journalists under pressure to disclose information and identify sources who provide evidence of possible wrongdoing.
The proposed powers granted to the armed forces are another central issue in the legal challenge. The petitioners have questioned sections 19, 20, 24 and 61, arguing that they confer broad search and arrest powers on the military and allow the Defence Secretary to declare prohibited areas.
According to the FMM, these provisions could restrict journalists’ ability to report on public protests and alleged human rights violations. The organisation maintains that such restrictions could obstruct independent reporting of events involving state authorities and limit the public’s access to information.
The petitioners also argue that the bill would violate fundamental rights guaranteed by Sri Lanka’s Constitution, including equality, freedom of expression and popular sovereignty. They contend that the proposed restrictions could weaken democratic accountability by limiting the ability of journalists to investigate and report on matters of public concern.
The challenge seeks a determination from the Supreme Court on the bill’s constitutional validity before it proceeds further. The FMM has asked the court to rule that enactment of the proposed legislation would require both a special two-thirds majority in Parliament and approval by the people at a referendum.
The petition places the proposed legislation’s definitions of terrorism, reporting obligations, military powers and restrictions on access to certain areas at the centre of the constitutional dispute.
