Sri Lanka's government published a revised Protection of the State from Terrorism (PSTA) Bill in a Gazette Supplement dated 18 September 2026, officially released on 22 September. While the revision was anticipated to address widespread criticism of the original draft, legal analysts and civil society voices are raising urgent concerns. Among the most prominent critics is Dr. Sanjana Hattotuwa, a respected researcher specializing in information integrity, digital rights, and democratic governance. His assessment is unambiguous: the bill has been revised, but it has not been meaningfully reformed.
What Changed — And What Did Not
Legal analyst Ambika Satkunanathan's review, published in the Daily FT on 26 September, provides a detailed breakdown of the amendments introduced in the revised bill. Dr. Hattotuwa aligns with most of her concerns, underscoring that the fundamental architecture of the legislation remains largely intact. Surface-level modifications may give the appearance of responsiveness to public criticism, but the core provisions that threaten civil liberties, press freedom, and information rights have not been substantially altered.
Critics argue that the revised bill retains broad, vaguely worded definitions of terrorism-related offenses that could easily be applied to journalists, activists, researchers, and ordinary citizens exercising their right to free expression. This ambiguity is not accidental — it creates legal grey zones that authorities can exploit to silence dissent, restrict reporting, or criminalize the sharing of information deemed inconvenient to the state.
Information Integrity at the Heart of the Debate
Dr. Hattotuwa's analysis is particularly significant because it approaches the PSTA Bill not merely as a legal or constitutional question, but as a direct threat to information integrity — the ability of citizens, journalists, and institutions to access, share, and act upon accurate and reliable information without fear of state reprisal.
In an era where disinformation is already eroding public trust in democratic institutions, legislation that chills legitimate speech compounds the problem dramatically. When sources fear prosecution, when journalists self-censor, and when researchers avoid sensitive topics, the informational ecosystem deteriorates. The public is left with less reliable information precisely when it needs more. Anti-terrorism legislation with sweeping scope has historically been misused in Sri Lanka and across South Asia to target minority communities, political opponents, and media organizations — and the revised PSTA Bill, according to Dr. Hattotuwa, does not adequately guard against such misuse.
The Danger of Broad Definitions
One of the most persistent criticisms leveled at the PSTA Bill concerns its definitional framework. Terms such as "promoting terrorism," "glorifying" violent acts, or "supporting" designated organizations remain dangerously expansive. In practice, these definitions could criminalize academic research into extremist movements, investigative journalism that documents state violence, or even social media commentary that questions official narratives.
For information professionals — fact-checkers, data journalists, digital rights advocates — this creates an impossible environment. The very act of analyzing extremist content to debunk it could, under a broad reading of the bill, constitute a prosecutable offense. Dr. Hattotuwa's concern is that the revised bill fails to carve out clear and robust protections for legitimate public interest work, leaving practitioners vulnerable to arbitrary legal action.
Democratic Governance and Legislative Accountability
Beyond the specific provisions of the bill, the process by which it has been revised raises its own red flags. Meaningful legislative reform requires genuine stakeholder consultation — with civil society, legal experts, affected communities, and independent media. Critics suggest that the revision process was insufficiently transparent and that recommendations from rights organizations were not meaningfully incorporated into the final draft.
This pattern reflects a broader governance challenge in Sri Lanka, where legislation affecting fundamental freedoms is sometimes advanced with limited public deliberation. The result is laws that may satisfy procedural requirements while failing the substantive democratic test of protecting the rights and dignity of all citizens equally.
What Needs to Change
For the PSTA Bill to genuinely serve both national security imperatives and democratic values, several fundamental changes are necessary. Definitions of terrorism-related offenses must be narrowed and precisely worded to prevent overreach. Explicit protections for journalism, academic research, and public interest expression must be embedded in the legislation. Independent oversight mechanisms must be established to review the application of the law. And sunset clauses or mandatory review periods should ensure that extraordinary powers do not become permanently normalized.
Dr. Hattotuwa's analysis serves as a timely reminder that security legislation must be evaluated not only on its stated intentions but on its likely real-world effects — particularly on the most vulnerable members of society and on the institutions that hold power accountable.
Conclusion
The revised PSTA Bill of 2026 represents a missed opportunity. Sri Lanka needed genuine reform — legislation that addresses legitimate security concerns while firmly protecting civil liberties and information rights. What it received, according to Dr. Sanjana Hattotuwa and other analysts, is a cosmetically adjusted version of a deeply problematic framework. As parliamentary debate continues, civil society must maintain pressure to ensure that revision becomes genuine reform before this bill becomes law.