Freedom of expression under threat: HRCSL

The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) has expressed deep concern over what it described as emerging threats to freedom of expression in Sri Lanka, particularly the ability of journalists to carry out their professional duties without undue interference.

In a statement issued yesterday, the Commission said it was especially disturbed by a growing trend of law enforcement authorities initiating investigations into allegedly defamatory speech, including speech by journalists, despite defamation no longer being a criminal offence under Sri Lankan law.

The HRCSL highlighted a recent incident involving journalist Tharindu Jayawardena, who is also a member of the Commission’s Sub-Committee on Freedom of Expression. Jayawardena was summoned for a Police inquiry without being informed of the reasons for the summons, a lapse the Commission said later emerged was linked to a complaint alleging defamatory remarks in his reporting on corruption involving the use of public funds.

The Commission noted that the failure to inform an individual of the reasons for a Police summons constitutes a breach of a circular issued by the Inspector General of Police (IGP) on 2 July 2025, which requires investigating officers to clearly disclose the basis for summoning any person.

Reiterating constitutional guarantees, the HRCSL stressed that freedom of expression is protected under the Constitution and applies to all forms of expression, including those made through online platforms. It recalled Supreme Court jurisprudence affirming that the right protects not only speech that is favourably received, but also expression that may offend, shock, or disturb the State or sections of the population.

While recognising that freedom of expression may be subject to restrictions under Articles 15(2) and 15(7) of the Constitution, the Commission emphasised that such restrictions must satisfy the tests of necessity, proportionality, and reasonableness. It cautioned that unnecessary or disproportionate restrictions could contribute to public frustration and social unrest.

Addressing defamation, the HRCSL said there remains a widespread misconception that defamatory speech can attract criminal sanctions. It pointed out that defamation falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of civil courts, noting that Chapter XIX of the Penal Code was repealed in 2002. As such, the Commission said, the Sri Lanka Police have no authority to entertain or investigate complaints that relate solely to alleged defamation.

The Commission further observed a pattern in which political actors and influential individuals seek to file complaints with law enforcement agencies over allegedly false or defamatory statements, particularly on online platforms. It recalled international human rights standards requiring public figures to tolerate a higher degree of criticism than private individuals and urged such figures to respond through proportionate means, such as public clarification, rather than recourse to police investigations.

The HRCSL also raised serious constitutional concerns regarding the use of the Online Safety Act, warning that its deployment to suppress freedom of expression, including for the purported purpose of preventing defamation, raises significant questions of legality. While acknowledging that online safety is a legitimate objective, the Commission said the current law fails to adequately address genuine online harms and has drawn broad criticism from civil society.

The Commission called on the Government and relevant authorities to take immediate steps to safeguard freedom of expression, including refraining from misusing criminal processes to address matters that properly fall within the domain of civil law.