Twenty-two Special Determination petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill are listed for hearing before the Supreme Court today, 20 October.
The petitions go before a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena and Justices Achala Wengappuli and Sampath Abayakoon, the Daily Mirror reported at 9.12 a.m. Hiru News names the same bench and the same count, filing at 9.57 a.m.
The bill was placed on the Order Paper of Parliament on 6 October. Under Sri Lanka’s constitutional scheme, a bill can be challenged only in the narrow window between tabling and enactment, and only by way of a Special Determination — which is why twenty-two separate challenges have converged on a single hearing date.
What one petition asks for
Samagi Jana Balawegaya parliamentarian Ajith P. Perera is among the petitioners, and his filing is the most fully reported. He asks the court to declare Clauses 26, 27, 28, 29, 60(3)(c), 60(7) and 68(2) inconsistent with Article 3 read with Article 4 of the Constitution — a finding that would force the bill onto the Article 83 route, requiring a two-thirds parliamentary majority and approval by the people at a referendum.
Three objections are specified:
- Bail moves up the court hierarchy. The bill restricts magistrates’ power to grant bail, vesting it in the High Court instead.
- Rehabilitation without a charge. The Secretary would be empowered to refer individuals to rehabilitation programmes without their being charged with, or convicted of, any offence.
- Restriction Orders drawn broadly. They may prohibit association with persons or entities merely reasonably suspected of an offence under the bill.
The second petitioner this desk has covered
Former minister Udaya Gammanpila is also named among the petitioners. His petition, filed on Monday, asks for the same remedy Perera seeks — a determination that the offending clauses cannot pass on a simple majority — and names the Attorney General as respondent. At the time of that filing, neither outlet reporting it indicated how many other challenges existed. Today’s figure of twenty-two is the first published count.
Not reported
Neither filing lists the remaining twenty petitioners, states which clauses the other petitions target, or says whether the bench will hear all twenty-two together or in batches. Neither reports a response from the Attorney General, and neither says when a determination is expected. Ada Derana, which has covered earlier stages of this bill, could not be fetched — its CloudFront block on this host is now in its thirty-second day.
One caution for readers searching this story themselves: Sri Lanka’s 2023–24 Anti-Terrorism Bill was a different bill, challenged in a different Supreme Court round, and outlets use “anti-terrorism bill” loosely for both. The bill before the court today is the 2026 Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill, tabled on 6 October.
Update, 20 October: the hearing has begun — and the petition count is now in dispute
The Supreme Court commenced hearing the petitions on Tuesday, Hiru News reported at 11.29 a.m., describing the hearing as under way before the same three-judge bench of Chief Justice Surasena and Justices Wengappuli and Abayakoon.
Hiru’s account of what the petitioners are asking matches the filings reported this morning: that certain clauses of the bill violate fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, and that the court should accordingly determine that those clauses can be passed only by a two-thirds majority in Parliament together with approval at a referendum.
Three different numbers, all published on one morning
The one thing that is no longer settled is how many petitions there are.
| Source | Time (Colombo) | Count |
|---|---|---|
| Daily Mirror / Hiru, ahead of the hearing | 9.12 a.m. / 9.57 a.m. | 22 listed for hearing today |
| Speaker, to Parliament, via Daily Mirror | 10.00 a.m. | 30 petitions, copies received |
| Hiru, as the hearing opened | 11.29 a.m. | ”about 25” submitted to the court |
Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne told Parliament he had received copies of thirty petitions against the bill — in the same announcement in which he reported thirty against the Sri Lanka Cricket Bill. Hiru, filing from the court ninety minutes later, puts the figure at approximately twenty-five, using a hedging word rather than a firm count.
The three figures are not necessarily in conflict, and they are measuring at least two different things. The Speaker’s thirty is the number of petitions of which copies have been transmitted to him; the twenty-two was the number listed for hearing on Tuesday; and Hiru’s “about twenty-five” is an approximation of the number filed with the court. A petition can be filed without being listed, and the count transmitted to the Speaker can run ahead of the court’s list as late filings arrive.
No outlet reconciles them, and none states which number is the court’s own. Readers should treat twenty-two as the firm figure — it is the only one attributed to the hearing list, and it is the one two outlets gave independently — and the higher figures as indicating that further petitions exist beyond those listed.
Still not reported
Nothing published yet says what was argued on Tuesday, whether the Attorney General has responded, how long the hearing is expected to run, or when a determination will be delivered. The petitioners other than Ajith P. Perera and Udaya Gammanpila remain unnamed.
Update, 20 October evening: the arguments, and the count settled in open court
A fuller account of Tuesday’s hearing has been filed, by Hiru News at 8.17 p.m. It answers most of what the section above recorded as unreported: what was argued, who else is petitioning, and — from the Attorney General’s own counsel — how many petitions exist.
The count: 25, stated by the Attorney General’s counsel
Additional Solicitor General Nerin Pulle, appearing for the Attorney General, informed the court that twenty-five petitions have been filed challenging the bill, and that this had been reported to the Speaker’s office.
That supersedes the three-way split tabulated above, for a reason of standing rather than arithmetic: it is the only figure given to the court by the respondent’s own counsel, and it is the figure the Attorney General says was transmitted to the Speaker. The “twenty-two” was a hearing-list count, and Hiru’s earlier “about twenty-five” was an approximation that this filing now resolves to a firm number.
The Speaker’s thirty, reported to Parliament at 10 a.m., remains unexplained. No outlet reconciles it, and this desk notes that the same announcement gave thirty against the Sri Lanka Cricket Bill as well.
What the petitioners argued
Attorney Hijaz Hizbullah, appearing for several petitioners including the journalists F.M. Fazeer and Tharindu Uduwaragedara, made the submission that supplies the headline quotation:
“Through this bill the judicial power of the people is being restricted. Through that the sovereignty of the people is directly violated. Through this bill the magistrate has been made a mere ‘rubber stamp’.”
His specific objections:
- Bail requires the Attorney General’s consent. A magistrate can release a suspect only with the Attorney General’s concurrence — which, he argued, subordinates a judicial decision to the executive.
- Detention without a court order. Clauses 27 and 28 give the executive power to detain a person without any judicial order.
- Clause 59 confers arbitrary power on the President, in a manner he said is wholly contrary to Articles 3 and 4 of the Constitution.
- Who may arrest. Under the existing Prevention of Terrorism Act only the police may arrest. The bill extends that power to the tri-forces and the Coast Guard. Where a police arrest follows the direction of a Superintendent of Police, he said, the bill gives the power of arrest to “anyone wearing a uniform.”
- Movement orders. The Secretary to the Ministry of Defence would be empowered to issue orders barring citizens from entering certain areas.
He asked the court to determine that the impugned clauses require a two-thirds majority and a referendum.
Ali Sabry, for G.L. Peiris, on what wrongful detention has already produced
President’s Counsel Ali Sabry, appearing for former minister Professor G.L. Peiris — a petitioner not previously named in this article — accepted the premise and attacked the safeguards. “Protecting the state is very important. There is no debate about that. But it is necessary that these Acts operate without violating the rights of innocent persons.”
His example was the Vavunathivu case. Before the Easter Sunday attacks, two police officers were killed in the Vavunathivu area and their firearms taken; two Tamil youths were arrested, detained, and confessions were obtained from them. After the Easter attacks it emerged that the killings had been committed by a group linked to the bombers. “Such things should not happen.”
He raised two further points:
- Two years of custody. The bill permits a person to be held in remand for a further year after a year of detention — which, he said, is contrary to the provisions of the Bail Act.
- Clause 51 and the right of assembly. If the executive decides that a meeting, a press conference or any activity is a threat to security, the bill empowers it to ban it. “That is extremely dangerous.”
Asked a question from the bench by the Chief Justice, Sabry said the power to make that decision should rest with a magistrate. His illustration was a protest near the Presidential Secretariat, where police reported the facts to a magistrate, obtained orders and resolved the matter — the course of events this archive recorded when a magistrate barred fifty-four people from the area around that building. “It is not appropriate to vest the power of taking such decisions in the executive.”
The Attorney General’s position, and Sumanthiran
Nerin Pulle told the court that the government does not intend through this bill to curtail freedom of expression in any way. That is the first reported response from the Attorney General on the merits, and it addresses the assembly and expression objections rather than the detention or bail ones.
President’s Counsel M.A. Sumanthiran, for several other petitioners, argued that the bill is “a further continuation of the existing Prevention of Terrorism Act” — the statute the PSTA is presented as replacing. Personal liberty is restricted under it, he said, and limiting judicial power is “extremely problematic,” amounting to a violation of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
What is now known, and what is not
Five petitioners are now identifiable: Ajith P. Perera, Udaya Gammanpila, G.L. Peiris, F.M. Fazeer and Tharindu Uduwaragedara. Twenty remain unnamed.
The clauses in dispute now span 26, 27, 28, 29, 51, 59, 60(3)(c), 60(7) and 68(2) across the reported petitions — note that Hizbullah’s submission adds Clause 59, and Sabry’s adds Clause 51, to the list this article carried this morning.
Still unreported: when the determination will be delivered, whether the hearing concluded on Tuesday or continues, and whether the Attorney General will respond on the detention, bail and arrest-power objections, which Tuesday’s reported submissions did not address.
