Navigating the future: Rethinking Religious Expression and Fundamental Freedoms in Sri Lanka

A pluralistic democracy like Sri Lanka requires, among other things, the robust protection of two  interdependent pillars: Freedom of Expression (FoE) and Freedom of Religion or Belief (FoRB). The  protection of these two freedoms must begin with the recognition that these are not competing interests,  but mutually reinforcing pillars of a democratic society, as established under Articles 18 and 19 of the  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights  (UDHR). FoE provides the essential vehicle for the manifestation and propagation of religion or belief,  while FoRB safeguards the conscience from which expression emerges. These freedoms function as a vital  check on state overreach, empowering minority communities and dissenters to challenge majoritarian  hegemony. Previous articles based on NCEASL’s report discussed several challenges posed by Sri Lanka’s  existing legal framework as well as in the intersection of FoRB and FoE.  

The issues highlighted in the report underscore the need to address these challenges by bringing domestic  laws into closer alignment with international human rights standards and shifting from a majoritarian  approach to a rights-based framework that can foster lasting religious harmony. Achieving this requires  the State to act as a protector of fundamental rights, rather than a perpetrator of violations. With this  objective in mind, the report sets out a series of recommendations for key stakeholders.  

As architects of Sri Lanka’s legal and policy framework, lawmakers and policymakers have a key role in  ensuring that legislation protects both public order and fundamental rights. The report therefore calls for  legislative reforms to strengthen protections for FoRB and FoE, including the repeal of Section 2(1)(h) of  the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the amendment of Penal Code Sections 291A, 291B, and 120 to  ensure that criminal liability arises only in cases involving clear malicious intent, incitement, and an  imminent risk of harm, consistent with the ICCPR and the UN Rabat Plan of Action. The report also  recommends reforms to the Online Safety Act to remove theological and other non-empirical claims from  the definition of ‘false statements’ and ensure that restrictions on speech comply with the principles of  legality, necessity, and proportionality. It further calls for legislative clarification that religious registration  is voluntary and should not be used to restrict religious practice. More broadly, the report urges Sri Lanka  to align its constitutional and legal framework with Articles 18, 19, and 20 of the ICCPR by strengthening  protections for religious freedom, freedom of expression, and equality. 

As guardians of the Constitution and the rule of law, the judiciary plays a vital role in ensuring that laws  are applied in a manner that protects both public order and fundamental rights. The report encourages  courts to consistently apply the six-part threshold test under the UN Rabat Plan of Action when assessing  allegations of hate speech or incitement, taking into account factors such as context, intent, content,  dissemination, and the likelihood of harm. It further recommends that criminal convictions be pursued  only where the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had the specific intent to  incite discrimination, hostility, or violence, and that the expression posed an imminent risk of such harm.  Recent judicial reasoning in the Ramzy Razeek and Nathasha Edirisooriya cases reflects a growing  recognition of the need to protect FoE and prevent the misuse of criminal laws where the high threshold  for incitement is not met. Building on these developments, the report calls for continued rights-based  interpretations that uphold both FoRB and FoE in line with Sri Lanka’s international human rights  obligations.

As the first point of contact between the State and the public, law enforcement authorities play a crucial  role in upholding public order while protecting fundamental rights. The report emphasises the need for  law enforcement in a fair, impartial manner, and grounded in an understanding of protections for FoRB  and FoE. To strengthen these safeguards, the report calls for the full implementation of the Human Rights  Commission of Sri Lanka’s guidelines on mandatory pre-arrest legal reviews in speech-related cases, as  well as the integration of the Police Circular on the ICCPR Act into police training programmes. It further  highlights the importance of ensuring that law enforcement officers do not initiate investigations or  arrests solely on allegations of offense or insult where the threshold for criminal liability has not been  met. The report also recommends clarifying that religious registration is voluntary and cannot be used to  restrict or regulate religious communities. In addition, it calls for stronger oversight mechanisms, including  through the National Police Commission, to address allegations of bias, selective enforcement, and  failures to respond to incidents of majoritarian violence, thereby strengthening accountability, public  trust, and equal protection under the law. 

Civil society plays a key role in promoting accountability and protecting fundamental rights as an  independent voice and a bridge between communities and the State. The report encourages civil society  organisations to document and challenge the misuse of hate speech, blasphemy, the Online Safety Act,  and the Prevention of Terrorism Act through strategic litigation, while providing legal support to  individuals facing arbitrary restrictions on FoRB and FoE. It also calls on civil society to challenge unlawful  attempts by local authorities to restrict places of worship based on the mistaken assumption that religious  registration is mandatory, reinforcing the principle that administrative measures should not limit religious  freedom. Beyond legal advocacy, the report highlights the importance of promoting counter-speech,  public education, and informed dialogue as alternatives to censorship when addressing offensive but  lawful expression. The report further encourages interfaith initiatives to move beyond symbolic  engagement and facilitate meaningful conversations on sensitive issues such as religious conversion and  minority rights, helping to foster greater understanding and inclusive communities. 

As trusted voices within their communities, religious leaders are uniquely placed to shape public  attitudes, defuse tensions, and promote peaceful coexistence.

The report encourages them to use this  influence to foster dialogue, mutual respect, and restraint, particularly in situations where religious beliefs  or practices may become the subject of public disagreement or criticism. In responding to expressions  perceived as offensive, the report urges religious leaders to promote non-reactive and peaceful responses  by drawing on the ethical and spiritual teachings within their own faith traditions. It points, for example,  to the Buddhist Akkosa Sutta, which encourages individuals to de-escalate conflict by refusing to receive  or reciprocate insults, offering an example of how religious teachings can reinforce tolerance and  reconciliation. At the same time, the report encourages faith communities to develop and uphold ethical  guidelines for the peaceful propagation of religious beliefs. Such guidelines, it notes, should respect local  social norms, individual privacy, and human dignity while affirming that the peaceful sharing of religious  convictions—including the right to seek, adopt, or change one's religion or belief through voluntary  conversion—is a protected aspect of freedom of religion or belief under international human rights  standards. 

As key actors in shaping public discourse, media organisations and digital platforms have an important  role in promoting informed dialogue and reducing social tensions around issues of FoRB. The report  encourages media outlets to avoid sensationalised coverage of religious disputes, distinguish between lawful but offensive expression and genuine incitement, and prioritise accurate, contextual, and balanced  reporting. It further highlights the importance of investigative journalism in examining the misuse of  blasphemy, hate speech, and related laws, rather than amplifying allegations that may fuel hostility or  unnecessary restrictions. Digital platforms are also encouraged to ensure transparency, accountability,  and due process in content moderation, particularly under the Online Safety Act, while ensuring that  restrictions on online expression comply with international standards of legality, necessity, and  proportionality. 

Therefore, the report emphasises the need for a coordinated approach involving all branches of the state  and civil society to foster a rights-respecting environment for religious expression. Sri Lanka can achieve  genuine religious harmony not through censorship, but by ensuring the equal protection of FoE and FoRB.  Human rights law protects individuals from harm and discrimination, not religious figures, symbols, or  beliefs from criticism, satire, or offense. Reform is therefore essential to build a truly pluralistic society in  which the law safeguards people while preserving an open, peaceful, and diverse public sphere for the  exchange of ideas. 

This is the final article of a 3 part series based on NCEASL’s report.   Read Part 1 here: https://www.nceasl.org/post/foundations-fault-lines-the-legal-framework-relating-to-freedom-of-speech-freedom-of-religion-o Read Part 2 here: https://www.nceasl.org/post/when-words-offend-the-cost-of-speaking-out-on-religion-in-sri-lanka