Sri Lanka’s proposed anti-terrorism legislation has triggered another serious human rights controversy, with the United Nations warning that an excessively broad definition of confidential information could turn ordinary public-interest activities into potential criminal offences.
At the centre of the controversy is Section 74 of the proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism (PSTA) Bill, which defines what constitutes confidential information for the purposes of several speech-related offences. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has warned that the provision could criminalise legitimate monitoring and documentation of security operations, including checkpoints, military deployments, police raids and arrests.
The implications extend beyond the media. Human rights organisations, independent researchers, civil society groups and ordinary citizens documenting events of public importance could also face uncertainty over whether information they collect or distribute might subsequently be classified as confidential.
The most troubling aspect is that the Government has retained substantially the same definition that appeared in its December 2025 draft, despite earlier concerns raised by the UN.
The definition covers information relating to the functions, movements or whereabouts of specified persons, secret security codes and passwords, as well as information considered likely to adversely affect national security and defence.
However, the absence of sufficiently precise boundaries raises the possibility that information about activities already visible to the public could nevertheless become the subject of legal disputes.
For example, photographing a security checkpoint, recording the movement of security personnel or reporting an arrest does not automatically constitute terrorism-related conduct. Such activities may instead form part of legitimate journalism, human rights monitoring or investigations into alleged misconduct.
However, OHCHR warns that the broad definition could expose these activities to criminalisation through the speech-related provisions contained in Sections 2, 8–11 and 15 of the Bill.
This creates a particularly difficult situation for communities seeking independent documentation of security operations.
In areas where military and security deployments have significant implications for civilian life, independent monitoring is essential for establishing what happened, when it happened and whether the conduct of authorities complied with the law.
If journalists and observers become reluctant to document such activities because of possible legal consequences, important evidence could remain unavailable to the public and independent investigators.
The danger is not limited to prosecutions. Uncertainty surrounding the interpretation of the law could encourage self-censorship, with editors, reporters and civil society organisations avoiding sensitive investigations even when they concern matters of legitimate public interest.
The controversy also raises questions about the Government’s commitment to replacing the PTA with legislation that genuinely strengthens democratic accountability.
Although the PSTA contains improvements over previous drafts, OHCHR has identified additional concerns involving detention powers, judicial oversight, arrest and search powers, executive discretion and safeguards against torture and ill-treatment. It has called for substantial revisions before enactment.
The Government must now explain why the disputed definition has survived despite repeated international warnings and whether meaningful amendments will be introduced.
National security cannot be treated as a blanket justification for restricting public access to information about state operations.
A democratic government must protect genuinely sensitive security information while ensuring that the public, media and independent watchdogs retain the freedom to investigate the exercise of state power.
The real test of the proposed legislation will therefore not be its stated intention to replace the PTA, but whether it prevents terrorism without weakening the fundamental mechanisms through which abuses of authority are exposed and accountability is secured.
