Criminal justice system is not beyond criticism

The Bar Association of Sri Lanka’s extraordinary statement warning of a “wave of social media attacks” against the Attorney General raises troubling questions, not about public behaviour, but about elite discomfort with accountability. By calling on the Government to curtail criticism on social media, the Bar Association has taken a position that is fundamentally at odds with democratic principles and the constitutional right to freedom of expression.

Social media today is the modern public square. It is where citizens debate governance, justice, corruption, violence, and institutional failure. Attempts to delegitimise this space as reckless or dangerous simply because criticism is uncomfortable reflect a deeper problem and an entrenched belief that the judiciary and the criminal justice system are beyond public scrutiny. They are not and should never be.

The Bar Association’s call is a remarkably poor one. Rather than defending democratic discourse, it appears to be an attempt to stifle growing and legitimate criticism of a criminal justice system that has failed the people of Sri Lanka for decades. The judiciary and the Attorney General’s Department are not sacred institutions insulated from public opinion. In fact they are public bodies exercising power in the name of the people. That power must invite scrutiny.

There is widespread frustration across the country over the lack of action in emblematic cases of violence, corruption, abuse of power, and political impunity. Cases that should be investigated, prosecuted, and concluded within months drag on for years. Some never even see the inside of a courtroom. Delays, selective prosecutions, inexplicable withdrawals, and prolonged inaction have eroded public trust. This is not a perception problem created by social media but a reality experienced by victims and citizens alike.

The legal profession may wish to preserve the status quo, where the criminal justice system remains untouchable and criticism is treated as contempt. But that desire cannot override the rights of citizens. The law is not the private domain of an elite class to interpret, apply, and shield from public discussion. Our citizens are not legally illiterate subjects who must accept silence in the face of injustice. They are citizens with a stake in how justice is administered.

In a democracy, institutions must be robust enough to withstand criticism, even criticism that is harsh, unfair, or uncomfortable. Public officials, including the Attorney General and judges, are not entitled to immunity from opinion simply because of the offices they hold. On the contrary, the higher the power, the greater the obligation to tolerate scrutiny.

Sri Lanka’s legal framework itself underscores this imbalance. To this day, there is no clear law defining contempt of court, leaving vast discretionary power in the hands of judges. This has enabled abuse, including the jailing of democratically elected lawmakers for speech-related offences. Such unchecked authority does not protect the dignity of the courts but undermines it. Respect cannot be demanded through fear. It must be earned through integrity, efficiency, and fairness.

The mafia-style protection of the so-called “sanctity” of the judiciary serves no one. It does not strengthen institutions but weakens them by detaching them from public legitimacy. Institutions survive not through silence and coercion, but through trust. And trust is built through transparency, accountability, and results.

If the judiciary and the criminal justice system are to regain public confidence, they must accept criticism as a democratic necessity, not a threat. Attempts to suppress opinion will only deepen suspicion and alienation. In a functioning democracy, no institution, least of all one entrusted with justice, is beyond critique.