On 8 September 2026, the Supreme Court determined that several provisions of the Bill to establish the Chartered Institute of Media Professionals of Sri Lanka are inconsistent with the Constitution. The Bill, which seeks to establish a professional body for media professionals and introduce and maintain professional standards, had been challenged before the Supreme Court under Article 121(1) of the Constitution. The Speaker subsequently communicated the Court’s determination to Parliament.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court determined that:
(i) Clause 3(i), which lists among the objects of the Institute the accreditation of media professionals “at the evaluation of their efficiency”, is vague and is therefore inconsistent with Articles 12(1) (right to equality) and 14(1)(g) (freedom to engage in any lawful occupation) of the Constitution, and may only be passed by the special majority required under Article 84(2). The inconsistency would cease if the clause is deleted.
(ii) Clause 4(o), which empowers the Institute to take the steps necessary to introduce, develop, maintain and monitor professional standards in the field of media, is inconsistent with Articles 12(1) and 14(1)(g) and may only be passed by the special majority required under Article 84(2). The inconsistency would cease if the clause is amended as proposed by the Court.
(iii) Clause 5(4)(b), which vests in the Minister-appointed Interim Council, composed of the Secretary to the Minister’s Ministry and six persons nominated by that Secretary, the power to make rules on the number of members to be selected to the Institute and the criteria for selecting them, and to elect and appoint the members and office bearers of the permanent Council, is inconsistent with Article 12(1) and may only be passed by the special majority required under Article 84(2). The inconsistency would cease if clause 5 is amended as proposed by the Court.
(iv) The rest of the clauses of the Bill are not inconsistent with the Constitution.
The determination is significant for the enabling environment for media freedom and freedom of expression, as it places constitutional limits on provisions regulating the professional activities of media professionals. In particular, the Court’s findings concerning the right to equality and the freedom to engage in a lawful occupation indicate that aspects of the proposed regulatory framework require amendment or a higher parliamentary threshold before they can be enacted. The determination therefore provides an important constitutional safeguard against potentially vague or restrictive provisions while leaving the broader Bill capable of proceeding subject to the Court’s recommendations.
Parliament has subsequently scheduled the Second Reading debate on the Bill for 23 September 2026, indicating that the legislative process is continuing following the Court’s determination.