Imprimatur without inquiry: What the Supreme Court ignored in the PSTA Bill

Newswire reports that Dr Sanjana Hattotuwa, a senior researcher, published a critique after the Supreme Court’s special determination on Sri Lanka’s proposed Protection of State Terrorism Act became public. Hattotuwa had previously written to the Daily FT on 28 September 2026 about concerns over the bill.

Newswire says the court’s 81-page determination called for four procedural amendments, while leaving unaddressed provisions that Hattotuwa argues could affect phones, online platforms and personal data. According to Newswire, he noted that the determination did not mention encryption or the Personal Data Protection Act, which he described as only partly in force.

Newswire reports that Hattotuwa focused on clause 8, which he says criminalises sharing information about police or military official activity, and clause 74, which he says extends the provision to such information without a secrecy or harm test.

Newswire says Hattotuwa also criticised the court’s failure to examine clause 51, which allows gatherings to be banned, and clause 59, which bars publication—online or in print—of material that furthers a banned group’s aims.