• Commission observes that over thirty clauses in the Bill and certain omissions in the Bill were inconsistent with the Sri Lankan Constitution

The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka expressed deep concern yesterday about what it called omissions of Supreme Court recommendations in the Online Safety Act in terms of the Act’s full compliance with the Supreme Court’s Determination.   

It stated that any such omission, and consequently, any remaining inconsistency with the Constitution, would have required that the Online Safety Bill be enacted only with a special majority in Parliament. Therefore, the failure to ensure full compliance with the Court’s determination may give occasion to serious concerns over whether the Act, in its current form, received the requisite number of votes in Parliament.   

The Commission, in a statement, said it wrote to Speaker of Parliament with reference to the Act titled ‘Online Safety’ certified on February 1, 2024 and published in the Official Gazette on February 2, 2024. It shared its observations on the Act in terms of its mandate under sections 10(c) and (d) of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka Act, No. 21 of 1996.   

The Commission emphasised that the Supreme Court is specifically entrusted with the authority to assess any Bill in terms of its consistency with the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights Chapter of the Constitution. Based on such an assessment, the Court is required to prescribe the manner in which such Bill may be enacted by Parliament. Full compliance with the Court’s Determination on a Bill is, therefore, crucial to guaranteeing the fundamental rights of the people of Sri Lanka.   

The Commission observed that, in the Supreme Court’s Determination on the Online Safety Bill, the Court found that over thirty clauses in the Bill and certain omissions in the Bill were inconsistent with the Sri Lankan Constitution.