Sri Lanka has been thrust into a heated constitutional and political debate following the government’s reported move to explore the creation of a so-called “Dharma Court,” a proposed mechanism intended to address disciplinary issues within the Buddhist clergy. The proposal, which has been discussed in a concept paper reportedly approved at Cabinet level, has triggered immediate resistance from the United National Party (UNP), which argues that such an institution would exceed the legal and constitutional authority of the state.
According to the UNP, neither the executive, legislature, nor judiciary has the constitutional mandate to interpret or adjudicate matters of “Dharma,” which it argues falls outside the scope of state law. The party further insists that while Parliament does have authority under Article 105 of the Constitution to legislate on disciplinary mechanisms relating to clergy conduct, the ultimate authority over monastic discipline lies within the internal structures of Buddhist sects themselves. This position places religious governance firmly within ecclesiastical institutions rather than state-controlled legal frameworks.
The controversy emerged in response to recent remarks by President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, who stated that a concept paper had been submitted to amend the Vihara–Devalagam Act and had received Cabinet approval. The President also indicated that discussions had taken place with senior officials, including the Registrar of Buddhist Affairs and the Attorney General. However, questions have been raised over whether broader political consultation, particularly with opposition Buddhist parliamentarians, was undertaken before advancing the proposal.
The debate has since expanded beyond procedural concerns into a wider ideological confrontation over the relationship between the state and religion. Critics argue that the proposal risks politicising Buddhist institutional governance and undermining long-standing traditions of monastic autonomy. Supporters, however, suggest that stronger legal mechanisms may be necessary to address misconduct within religious institutions and to protect the integrity of the Sangha.
A strongly worded statement attributed to former President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s office escalated tensions further, directly challenging the moral and historical legitimacy of the current government’s approach. The statement referenced past political violence and accused the ruling Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) of having a controversial historical record in relation to Buddhist clergy, citing incidents from the late 1980s. It also questioned whether a party with such a history could legitimately oversee reforms affecting Buddhist institutions.
These claims have injected highly sensitive historical grievances into an already volatile policy debate. Observers note that references to past violence involving monks risk deepening political polarisation at a time when Sri Lanka is still navigating post-crisis recovery and attempting to stabilise its governance institutions. The inclusion of historical accusations has also drawn criticism for shifting the discussion away from constitutional and administrative questions toward emotionally charged political narratives.
At the heart of the dispute lies the constitutional ambiguity surrounding religious governance in Sri Lanka. While Article 105 allows Parliament to legislate on matters relating to clergy discipline, legal scholars and political actors remain divided on the extent to which the state can intervene in internal religious affairs without infringing on religious autonomy. The UNP maintains that any attempt to establish a parallel adjudicatory body such as a “Dharma Court” could blur the separation between state authority and religious doctrine.
Supporters of reform argue that existing legal frameworks may be insufficient to address misconduct within religious institutions, particularly in cases that involve public order, financial irregularities, or reputational harm to major faith communities. However, opponents caution that formalising state-led religious adjudication risks politicising sacred institutions and undermining the independence of monastic orders that have functioned for centuries under their own disciplinary systems.
The debate has also revived historical references to earlier constitutional arrangements, including provisions introduced during the 1978 constitutional era, which allowed for mechanisms to address misconduct among clergy. Critics of the current proposal argue that those systems already provided structured pathways for discipline without creating new quasi-judicial religious bodies.
Beyond legal and political arguments, the controversy reflects deeper societal tensions over identity, governance, and the role of Buddhism in the Sri Lankan state. Some political voices have accused the government of attempting to centralise control over temple assets and religious institutions, particularly those governed under the Vihara–Devalagam framework. Others view the proposed reforms as part of a broader attempt to modernise institutional oversight and reduce corruption within religious establishments.
