Sri Lanka’s proposed Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill, gazetted on 6 October 2026, and submitted to the Parliament on 20 October 2026 has raised significant concerns among human rights organisations, legal professionals and civil society actors regarding its implications for fundamental rights, democratic freedoms and the rule of law in Sri Lanka. While the Government presents the Bill as a legislative measure to strengthen the country’s capacity to combat organised crime, address serious offences and fulfil obligations under the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime, its provisions have attracted widespread criticism over the extensive powers granted to law enforcement authorities and the inadequate safeguards against potential abuse.
Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the Centre for Policy Alternatives have highlighted several problematic provisions, including prolonged detention without trial, the admissibility of confessions made to senior police officers, broad police powers of arrest and search, restrictions on bail, expanded surveillance powers and limitations on media reporting. Concerns have also been raised regarding the Bill’s broad definitions of organised criminal activity, which could expose individuals to arbitrary arrest and prosecution based on their associations rather than demonstrable criminal conduct. These provisions risk undermining due process, privacy, freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, while potentially creating disproportionate risks for minority communities, human rights defenders, journalists and civil society organisations.
The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka has also expressed concerns about the Bill’s compatibility with constitutional protections and international human rights obligations, recommending its withdrawal and substantial revision. Similarly, the Bar Association of Sri Lanka has raised concerns regarding the proposed legislation alongside the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill.
Furthermore, Special Determination petitions challenging the constitutionality of the proposed Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill are mounting before the Supreme Court, reflecting growing legal scrutiny of the proposed legislation. The petitioners have raised concerns that several provisions of the Bill may be inconsistent with constitutional protections, particularly in relation to fundamental rights, judicial oversight and media freedom.
If enacted and implemented in its current form, the Bill could institutionalise exceptional security powers within ordinary criminal justice processes, creating long-term restrictions on civic space and democratic participation. Its effects could extend beyond individual cases, normalising surveillance, weakening accountability mechanisms and discouraging civil society engagement.