IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Application under and in terms of Article 126 read with Article 17 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

Mathiparanan Abraham Sumanthiran

3/1, Daya Road, Colombo 00600 PETITIONER Supreme Court Fundamental Rights Application No. 37/2024 Vs.

1. Honourable Mahinda Yapa Abeywardana Speaker of Parliament, Parliament of Sri Lanka, Sri Jayawardenapura Kotte

2. Honourable Attorney General, Attorney Genenral’s Department, Colombo 01200 RESPONDENTS Before : Priyantha Jayawardena PC, J A.L. Shiran Gooneratne, J Achala Wengappuli, J Counsel : Suren Fernando with Khyati Wickramanyake for the petitioner Sanjaya Rajaratnam PC, Attorney General with Viraj Dayaratne PC, ASG, Nirmalan Wigneswaran DSG and Medhaka Fernando SC for the Respondents Argued on : 20^th February, 2024 Decided on : 29^th February, 2024 Petition The petitioner filed the instant application, alleging that there was non-compliance with the determination made by the Supreme Court in legislating the ‘Online Safety Bill’. Further, in the prayer to the petition, the petitioner prayed, inter alia;

“(b) Issue an interim order suspending the operation of the purported document published as “Online Safety Act No. 9 of 2024” (marked P9(a)-(c)), and / or such other appropriate order;

(c) Declare that the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 12(1) and 14 of the Constitution to the Petitioner and the citizens of Sri Lanka, have been infringed by the purported certification by the 1^st Respondent of the 'Online Safety Act No. 9 of 2024" P9(a)-(e)), and that such conduct entails further imminent infringement of such rights, and amounts to a continuing violation of the said fundamental rights, and/or such other appropriate order;

(d) Declare that the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 12(1) and 14 of the Constitution to the Petitioner and the citizens of Sri Lanka, have been infringed by the 2^nd Respondent, by failing to advise the 1^st Respondent and/or Parliament that the purported Committee Stage Amendments did not make the Online Safety Bill compliant with the Determination of Your Lordships' Court and/or that the said Bill would still require a 2/3 Special Majority vote in order to be enacted into law;

(e) Declare that the purported certification of the 1^st Respondent of the purported 'Online Safety Act’ (P9(a)-(c)), is a nullity in law, and of no force and/or effect in law, and/ or such other appropriate order;

(f) Declare that the purported document published as "Online Safety Act No. 9 of

2024" (P9(a)-(c)) is ultra vires the Constitution and of no force and / or effect in law, and/or such other appropriate order;”

The petitioner stated that on the 18^th of September, 2023 a Bill titled ‘Online Safety Bill’ was published in the Gazette. Further, since the provisions in the said Bill were inconsistent with the Constitution, the jurisdiction of this court was invoked in terms of Article 120 read with Article 121 of the Constitution by the petitioner and several others to determine whether any of the Clauses in the said Bill were inconsistent with the Constitution.

The petitioner stated that when the Bill was taken up for hearing in court on the 18^th of October 2023, the learned Additional Solicitor General, who appeared in court on notice issued by court, proposed several amendments to the Bill and informed court that the said amendments would be moved at the Committee Stage in Parliament. After the hearing in court, the determination of the court was forwarded to the 1^st respondent and the President of the Republic. Thereafter, the 1^st respondent read out the determination in Parliament on the 7^th of November, 2023.

Further, this court determined that several Clauses of the Bill were inconsistent with the Constitution, and thus, such Clauses should be passed in Parliament by a Special Majority. However, the court further determined that if the proposed amendments ref