The Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill was presented to Parliament on Tuesday, taking the legislation intended to repeal Sri Lanka’s 1979 Prevention of Terrorism Act to the floor of the House for the first time.
The Bill seeks to repeal the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, No. 48 of 1979 and to put a new framework in its place for terrorism-related offences, the Daily Mirror reported.
It was not the only Bill tabled. Hiru News reported that legislation to restructure Sri Lanka Cricket was presented in the same sitting, and that “subsequent parliamentary procedures regarding the proposed legislation are scheduled to follow accordingly.”
What the Bill would change
The text was gazetted on 22 September, under a gazette supplement dated 18 September. It requires suspects to be produced before a magistrate within 48 hours — a duty the PTA did not impose — and caps detention ordered by the Secretary to the Ministry of Defence at two months at a time, with any extension beyond that requiring High Court approval and a one-year ceiling overall.
An Independent Review Committee chaired by a retired Supreme Court or Court of Appeal judge would review detention orders. Protest, advocacy, dissent, strikes and humanitarian work would not by themselves be enough to infer terrorist intent, and journalism, academic research and legal proceedings are expressly carved out.
Not everyone accepts those safeguards go far enough. Internet Media Action warned on 1 October that clauses on incitement and online sharing could still criminalise ordinary speech.
The week in the House
Parliament sits from 6 to 9 October, according to its own business notice. Tuesday’s scheduled business ran to debates on Foreign Exchange Act regulations and a Public Debt Management Act resolution; the Anti-Corruption (Amendment) Bill is down for its second reading this week, and the first reading of the 2027 Budget falls on 7 October.
Not reported
Neither filing gives a date for the second reading debate on the terrorism Bill, nor states whether any petition challenging its constitutionality has been filed in the Supreme Court. No outlet reports which clauses, if any, were amended between the 22 September gazette text and the version tabled on Tuesday.
