Section

Criticism

Recommendation

Reason for recommendation / amendment

Section 5- Appointment of the members of the Commission

The provision states that appointment will be made by President “subject to the approval of the Constitutional Council”. This could lead to confusion and interpretation that the approval is a mere formality.

It is recommended that the appointment be made by the President “on recommendation of the Constitutional Council”.

The current wording could lead to an interpretation that the approval is a mere “after the fact / ex-post” formality.

Section & Offence

Criticism

Recommendation

Reason for recommendation / amendment

Section 12 – Prohibition of communication of false statements in Sri Lanka

Vagueness: terms like “promotes feelings of ill-will and hostility”

Define “false statement” precisely, including objective criteria

Reduces risk of arbitrary enforcement and protects lawful expression

Section 13 – Communication of false statement amounting to contempt

Duplication: Already addressed under Contempt of a Court, Tribunal or Institution Act, No. 8 of 2024 (CCA);

Under the CCA “publish” includes dissemination through “the internet or other online communication system”

Note – The 2024 proposed amendment included a reference to “Judicature Act No 2 of 1978”

Repeal this section; rely on CCA provisions

Avoids legislative overlap and confusion.

Section 14 – Wantonly giving provocation by false statement to cause riot

Duplication: Covered under Penal Code

Merge with Section 12 definition of “false statement”

Streamlines offences and avoids redundancy/ repetition.

Section 15 – Disturbing a religious assembly

Duplication: Could be handled under general “false statement” offences

Merge into Section 12 offence

Prevents unnecessary proliferation of separate offences

Section 16 – Deliberate and malicious communication of false statement to outrage religious feelings

Vagueness: includes terminology like “outraging religious feelings” which is wide and vague

Repeal section; rely on well-defined “false statement” offence

Protects expression; avoids subjective enforcement

Note the proposed amendments of 2024 also called for the repeal of this provision.

Section 17 – Online Cheating

Duplication: Penal Code already addresses cheating

Either –

1. Consider an amendment to the Penal Code to explicitly reference cheating in the online space (note that such a reference is not needed as the Penal Code is not restrictive and is technology neutral)

Or

2. Amend the provision to reflect the intent behind the provision.

Avoids redundancy while addressing modern online threats

Section 18 – Online Cheating by personation

Duplication: Covered by Penal Code

Amend Penal Code OR redraft to capture unique online impersonation harms

Avoids redundancy while addressing modern online threats

Section 19 – Circulating false report with intent to cause mutiny/offence against the State

Vagueness and duplication: terms like “alarm to the public” are unclear; already addressed under OSA false statement provisions

Repeal section

Eliminates overlap and restrictions that are vague.

Note the proposed amendments of 2024 also called for the repeal of this provision.

Section 20 – Communicating statements to cause harassment

Vagueness: wide definitions of “private information” and “harassment”; protection limited to “private information” and not “private communication”.

It appears that the intent behind provision was to provide protection against misuse and abuse of private information.

Amend to focus on “non-consensual sharing of intimate or private images and communication”.

Provides targeted protection against image / text -based abuse

Section 21 – Child Abuse

Narrow scope: only cross-references Penal Code; does not address modern online harms

Amend to include offences like deepfake child sexual abuse material

Enhances child protection in the online environment

Section 22 – Making or altering bots to commit an offence

Overbroad: Definition of “bot”*1 overly broad; could capture legitimate tools (e.g., customer service chatbots, research automation). Intent threshold unclear; Technology neutrality concern — risks becoming outdated as tech evolves.

Narrow scope to bots primarily designed or knowingly altered for committing offences. Clarify intent requirement. Use technology-neutral language to future-proof provision. For example – “automated tools, including but not limited to bots”

Prevents overreach to lawful automation; ensures focus on malicious actors; avoids redundancy and maintains relevance as technology changes.