இலங்கை நாடாளுமன்றத்தில் சமர்ப்பிக்கப்பட்டுள்ள அரசை பயங்கரவாதத்திலிருந்து பாதுகாக்கும் சட்டமூலத்தில் கணிசமான திருத்தங்களை மேற்கொள்ளுமாறு ஐக்கிய நாடுகள் மனித உரிமை ஆணையாளர் அலுவலகம் இலங்கை அரசாங்கத்தை கேட்டுக்கொண்டுள்ளது.
பயங்கரவாத தடைச்சட்டத்துடன் நீண்டகாலமாக தொடர்புடைய பல மனித உரிமை பிரச்சினைகள் இந்த சட்டமூலத்தின் பல முக்கிய சரத்துக்களால் தொடரும் அபாயம் உள்ளதாக தெரிவித்துள்ள ஐக்கிய நாடுகள் மனித உரிமை ஆணையாளர் அலுவலகம் மேலும் தெரிவித்துள்ளதாவது
பயங்கரவாதத்திற்கான வரையறையை குறைத்தல்,பொலிஸாரிடம் வழங்கப்படும் வாக்குமூலத்தை சாட்சியமாக ஏற்றுக்கொள்வதை நீக்குதல்,ஊடகவியலாளர்கள் மற்றும் சிவில் சமூகத்தினருக்கான வலுவான பாதுகாப்புகள் பொலிஸ் விசாரணைகளை கட்டாயமாக காணொளி மூலம் பதிவு செய்தல், போன்ற பல முன்னேற்றங்கள் முந்தைய வரைபுகளுடன் ஒப்பிடும்போது இந்த சட்ட மூலத்தில் காணப்படுகின்றன
எனினும் முன்மொழியப்பட்டுள்ள இந்த சட்டம் போதுமான நீதித்துறை மேற்பார்வை,உரிய சட்டப்பொறிமுறை உத்தரவாதங்கள்,சித்திரவதைகள் தன்னிச்சையாக தடுத்துவைத்தல் போன்றவற்றிற்கு எதிராக போதிய பாதுகாப்புகளை வழங்க தவறியுள்ள அதேவேளை உத்தேச சட்டம் நிறைவேற்றதிகாரத்திற்கும் முப்படையினர் மற்றும் பொலிஸாருக்கும் குறிப்பிடத்தக்க அதிகாரங்களை வழங்கி வருகின்றது.
அரசாங்கம் பயங்கரவாதம் குறித்த தனது வரையறையை மேலும் தெளிவுபடுத்தி வரையறுக்கவேண்டும்.ஒவ்வொரு கைது மற்றும் தடுத்துவைப்பு தொடர்பிலும் விரைவான மற்றும் பயனுள்ள நீதித்துறை கட்டுப்பாட்டை கோரவேண்டும்.சித்திரவதை துஸ்பிரயோகம் மற்றும் வலிந்து காணாமலாக்கப்படுதலிற்கு எதிரான பாதுகாப்புகளை வலுப்படுத்தவேண்டும்.
அரசாங்கம் நியாயமான விசாரணை பாதுகாப்பு உறுதிப்படுத்தவேண்டும்,சோhனைகள் போன்றவற்றிற்கு நீதிமன்ற ஆணைகளை கட்டாயமாக்கவேண்டும்.
ஆயுதப்படையினருக்கு வழங்கப்பட்டுள்ள பரந்துபட்ட அமுலாக்கல் அதிகாரங்களை நீக்கவேண்டும்,பயங்கரவாத எதிர்ப்பு நடவடிக்கைகளுக்கு பொலிஸாரே தலைமை வகிக்கவேண்டும். என ஐக்கிய நாடுகள் மனித உரிமை ஆணையாளர் அலுவலகம் வேண்டுகோள் விடுத்துள்ளது.
OHCHR comments on Sri Lanka’s Protection of the State from Terrorism (PSTA) Bill, as
gazetted on 22 September 2026
13 October 2026
Executive summary
The Office notes that PSTA the Bill contains some additional safeguards and improvements
on previous drafts, but is concerned that it reproduces or expands a number of shortcomings in the
PTA and earlier proposed counter-terrorism legislation. In particular, concerns remain regarding
broad and insufficiently precise terrorism offences; restrictions affecting protected expression and
civic activity; administrative detention and inadequate judicial control; extensive arrest and search
powers; executive discretion; safeguards against torture and ill-treatment; due process and fair-trial
guarantees; and effective accountability and remedies.
The Office respectfully recalls that terrorism and related offences must comply with the
principle of legality and be defined clearly, narrowly and foreseeably. Counter-terrorism legislation
should contain effective safeguards for freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, association,
religion or belief and participation in public affairs, and any restriction must be lawful, necessary and
proportionate to a legitimate aim.
The Office is concerned that administrative detention remains central to the proposed
framework. Any deprivation of liberty must be subject to prompt and effective judicial control and
periodic review. Every initial and extended detention order should therefore require independent
judicial approval, with the court empowered to refuse detention and order release. The deadline for
judicial production should run from the time of arrest and apply consistently, irrespective of the
arresting authority.
With regard to arrest, search, entry and seizure, the Office notes that broad powers may be
exercised without prior judicial authorization and, in specified circumstances, by armed-forces and
coast-guard personnel. Judicial warrants should be the rule for intrusive powers, subject only to
narrowly defined emergency exceptions and rapid court review. Any exercise of law-enforcement
powers by the armed forces or coast guard should be genuinely exceptional, time-limited, under
clear civilian authority and accompanied by effective accountability safeguards.
The PSTA Bill should include robust safeguards against torture, ill-treatment, enforced
disappearance and coercive interrogation. These should include prompt and confidential access to
legal counsel from first contact, including during questioning; timely family notification;
interpretation where required; independent medical safeguards; judicial supervision; legal aid where
necessary; and full respect for the presumption of innocence and equality of arms. All evidence
obtained through torture, coercion, unlawful detention or serious procedural violations should be
excluded.
2
The Office further expresses concern regarding the breadth and concentration of
discretionary powers vested in executive authorities, including in relation to detention, directives,
proscriptions, restrictions and prohibited places. Such powers should be governed by strict
requirements of necessity and proportionality, written reasons, disclosure, clear time limits and
prompt independent review. They should be accompanied by independent oversight, transparency
and effective avenues for accountability and remedy. Immunity provisions should not shield
unlawful arrest, torture, ill-treatment, enforced disappearance, recklessness, gross negligence or
other serious human rights violations. OHCHR also notes the restrictive bail framework, including
the transfer of bail jurisdiction to the High Court and the exceptional-circumstances threshold for
offences punishable by life imprisonment.
The Office encourages the Government to undertake a further comprehensive review of the
draft Bill before its enactment, in consultation with independent institutions, civil society
organisations and legal experts.
The Office respectfully recommends, in particular, that the Government:
1) Narrow and clarify the definition of terrorism and related offences; remove or
significantly revise provisions capable of criminalizing protected expression and civic
activity;
2) Require prompt, independent and effective judicial oversight of every arrest and
detention;
3) Strengthen safeguards against torture, ill-treatment, arbitrary detention and enforced
disappearance;
4) Reinforce due process and fair-trial guarantees;
5) Make judicial warrants the rule for intrusive search, entry and seizure powers;
6) Ensure civilian police primacy;
7) Establish effective independent oversight, accountability and remedies;
8) Narrow immunity provisions; and
9) Conduct meaningful public consultation before further legislative action.
The Office stands ready to continue its constructive dialogue with the Government on this
important legislation and to provide technical assistance toward the development of counterterrorism legislation fully consistent with international human rights law and applicable
international counter-terrorism standards.
……………………….
3
I. Introduction
This submission by the UN Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to the
Government of Sri Lanka contains preliminary comments on elements of the Protection of
the State from Terrorism (PSTA) Bill, as gazetted on 22 September 2026, and its compliance
from OHCHR’s perspective with Sri Lanka’s obligations under international human rights
law. It does not constitute a comprehensive analysis or a complete listing of concerns, but
rather a basis for further technical exchanges and to inform public debate.
1 These
comments should be considered alongside earlier observations by OHCHR,
2 UN human
rights treaty bodies,3 and UN Special Procedures mandate holders4
regarding the current
Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), its previous amendments, and earlier drafts of proposed
counter-terrorism legislation, in particular the 2023 draft Anti-Terrorism Bill and the 2025
draft PSTA Bill.
5
OHCHR welcomes the Government’s stated intention to repeal the PTA and replace it with
legislation that complies with international human rights norms and standards, in line with
Sri Lanka’s obligations under international human rights law, and as recommended by UN
Human Rights mechanisms and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Compared
with the previous draft of the PSTA from December 2025, OHCHR acknowledges some
positive developments. In particular, the current Bill:
• includes additional elements that contribute to a more precise and specific definition
of terrorism;
• removes the sovereignty and territorial-integrity purpose limb and several ordinary
crimes from the listed consequences;
• removes confession to police as admissible evidence;
• provides some safeguards for persons engaged in journalism, research, civil society
activity, human rights documentation and dissent;
• removes recklessness from the inducement and publication offences; and deletes
the separate statutory curfew power;
1 The analysis is grounded in Sri Lanka’s obligations under international human rights law, including the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and other major human rights treaties ratified by Sri Lanka
(https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/TreatyBodyExternal/Treaty.aspx?CountryID=164&Lang=EN) as well as key
“benchmarks” highlighted by the UN Special Procedures mandate holders for Sri Lanka’s counter-terrorism legislation to
be human rights compliant (OL LKA 7/2021).
2 See the statement of the Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights to the Human Rights Council of 8 September,
( https://www.ohchr.org/en/statements-and-speeches/2026/09/sri-lanka-needs-greater-momentum-change-saysdeputy-high)
3 For example, see the concluding observations of the UN Committee on Enforced Disappearances on the report of Sri
Lanka of 3 November 2025( CED/C/LKA/CO/1)
4 For example, the communication from several special procedure mandate holders on the draft Protection of the State
from Terrorism Act (OL LKA 1/2026)
(https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=30742)
5 OHCHR preliminary comments on Sri Lanka’s draft Anti-Terrorism Bill, 3 May 2023,
(www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/countries/sri-lanka/OHCHR-sri-lanka-preliminary-review-ATB.pdf), and
OHCHR’s comment on Sri Lanka’s draft Protection of the State from Terrorism (PSTA) Bill, 24 February 2026
(https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/countries/sri-lanka/ohchr-comments-sri-lanka-psta.pdf)
4
• introduces necessity and proportionality safeguards for several restrictive orders;
• requires audio-visual recording of police interviews and statements before a
Magistrate; and
• shortens requirement of notification of detention to the Human Rights Commission
of Sri Lanka to 48 hours; and establishes a central database of arrests and case
outcomes.
However, the PSTA Bill still contains multiple provisions that risk contravening the State’s
obligations under international human rights law and domestic constitutional guarantees,
and carries risks of continuation and recurrence of serious human rights violations observed
recurrently under the existing PTA regime.
In particular, it is concerning that the PSTA Bill reproduces and expands specific
deficiencies previously identified in the PTA, while introducing new risks and concerns.
These include:
• overcriminalization through the remaining breadth of section 3 and related offences;
• unjustified restrictions on freedoms of expression, including media freedom,
peaceful assembly and association, despite the new safeguards in sections 3 (4), 8
(2), 10 (3) and 11;
• broad executive powers that remain insufficiently constrained, particularly with
regard to Detention Orders, Restriction Orders and Proscription Orders;
• exposure to arbitrary arrest and prolonged executive detention without sufficiently
prompt and effective judicial control;
• continuing exposure to torture, other ill-treatment and enforced disappearance,
notably because important safeguards are incomplete or delayed; and
• remaining gaps with regard to due process, fair trial and effective remedy, including
under the transitional provisions in Section 73.
Particular attention is required to sections 72 and 73. Although section 72 would repeal the
PTA upon the new Act’s commencement, section 73 would preserve pending PTA cases and
significant elements of the PTA framework. Repeal should therefore be effective and
comprehensive in substance as well as in form, with transitional arrangements reviewed to
ensure that no person remains subject to proceedings, detention, evidentiary rules,
proscriptions or regulations that are incompatible with international human rights law.
Accordingly, OHCHR urges the Government to substantively redraft the PSTA Bill
before enactment. Important reforms, such as Sri Lanka’s counter-terrorism
framework, should fully comply with Sri Lanka’s international human rights obligations,
and the principles of legality, necessity, proportionality, non-discrimination and
effective judicial control. It should also avoid replicating, through its substantive,
procedural or transitional provisions, the structural and operational flaws of the PTA,
which have given rise to past practices such as arbitrary detention, torture and other
5
ill-treatment, and enforced disappearances. This should be undertaken through a
meaningful, transparent and inclusive consultation process involving civil society,
affected communities, legal professionals, independent institutions and other
stakeholders across Sri Lanka.
OHCHR stands ready to provide further technical assistance, legal advice and
comments, in accordance with international human rights standards and its mandate.
II. Definition of Offences
A. Definition of terrorism
OHCHR welcomes the narrowing of the definition of terrorism under section 3 of the Bill
compared to the earlier definition set out in the 2025 draft PSTA Bill (2025 PSTA Bill), and that
it better aligns with some elements of the definition of terrorism as provided by UN Security
Council resolution 1566 (2004), the model definition of terrorism recommended by the UN
Special Rapporteur on Counter Terrorism and Human Rights (SR CT), and OHCHR’s
guidance note on defining terrorism in domestic criminal legislation.
For instance, section (3)(1) partially includes the three cumulative material, mental and
terrorist purpose elements. It limits the terrorist crime to intentional violent acts that result
in serious outcomes, namely death, grievous hurt and hostage-taking, with the purpose of
provoking a state of terror, and unduly compelling a government or an international
organization to advance a political or ideological objective. Furthermore, contrary to the
2025 PSTA Bill, the current Bill no longer includes abduction, robbery, extortion, theft and
weapons possession as acts of terrorism.
However, the definition of terrorism remains overly broad and vague. The principle of legality
under article 15 (1) of the ICCPR requires that criminal laws are sufficiently precise so that it
is clear what types of behaviour and conduct constitute a criminal offence, and what would
be the legal consequences of committing such an offence. Specifically, with regard to
sections 3(1) and 3(2), paragraphs (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), and (j):
• The weakening of the mental element of “any person, who intentionally or “knowingly”
commits any terrorism act” under 3 (1) is problematic, as terrorism offences should
not include a lesser standard of liability than specific intention, given the gravity of
the crime. Reliance on knowledge as an alternative risks weakening the culpability
threshold and increasing exposure to arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement.
• The reference to “unduly compelling a government or an international organization”
is not further defined, remaining too vague and broad and could be used to target
protected conduct such as peaceful protests or acts of civil disobedience, despite
the procedural safeguards provided by 3(4).
