Connect with us

News

Prez urged to withdraw Personal Data Protection Act (A) Bill, consult relevant stakeholders

Published

on

A group of non-governmental organisations and their linked individuals have urged President Anura Kumara Dissanayakaye to withdraw the Personal Data Protection Act (amendment) Bill (Data Protection Act No 09 of 2022) that was gazetted in March 2025. They have requested President Dissanayake to consult relevant stakeholders and experts on key amendments to be made.

The following is the text of the letter dated May 5, 2025 addressed to President Dissanayake: We write to you in your capacity as the Minister of Digital Economy regarding the proposed amendment to the Personal Data Protection Act, No. 9 of 2022, which was placed on the gazette on 27 March 2025.

It is noteworthy that Sri Lanka is leading by example in South Asia as the first country to enact digital privacy legislation for the protection of its citizens. However, we would like to bring to your attention that the enactment of the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) in 2022 was met with criticism by media associations, civil society and members of the opposition, including members of your own party, due to its inability to fulfil the stated aim of safeguarding digital privacy. Regrettably, the proposed amendments to the PDPA do not rectify the concerns raised in 2022.

A crucial shortcoming of the Act is the power of the President to appoint members to lead the Data Protection Authority (DPA). The appointment process is not independent and hence does not guarantee that the DPA will function without political interference by successive governments. In this context, there is risk of the DPA being deliberately under-resourced or the staff lacking subject-domain expertise, which will adversely impact its ability to conduct investigations, develop robust guidelines, handle complaints efficiently, or effectively supervise complex data processing activities, especially when related to AI.

With the mandate to oversee the implementation of the Act, the DPA can carry out executive, administrative and quasi-judicial functions, including conducting investigations, issuing instructions to data controllers/processors and citizens for compliance and imposing hefty fines for non-compliance. With such a broad range of functions, it is imperative that the governing body is appointed with the approval of the Constitutional Council and does not function at the whim of the government in power.

There is a staggering power imbalance between data controllers and citizens, as citizens are unaware of how their data will be used or stored or how to access remedies when data controllers violate their rights under the Act. For instance, there is no mention of whether legal representation is required, timelines for the conclusion of investigations etc. For the Act to achieve the stated aims, the remedies need to be accessible, meaningful and timely.

The vague and broad terms contained in the Act will result in arbitrary and inconsistent application. The Act does not provide clear, enforceable mechanisms for data breach notifications or for assessing risks to individuals’ privacy. Additionally, exemptions contained in the Act allow restriction of citizens’ right to data privacy for purposes such as national security and public safety. The ambit of “public safety” and “national security” are to be determined by a DPA that is not-independent. In such contexts, as historically demonstrated in Sri Lanka, minority groups and marginalised communities have been impacted the most by the arbitrary application of broad and vague laws.

International standards recommend the inclusion of a “journalistic exemption” in data privacy laws, whereby journalists and media organisations are allowed to store/process the private information of individuals, such as political figures, for the purposes of accurate reporting and informing the public. The lack of a “journalistic exemption” in the PDPA can hamper free and fair reporting as journalists carry the risk of being sanctioned under the Act. Additionally, the concern extends to other activities conducted in the public interest, such as research in social sciences or health, investigations by civil society organisations. Even certain forms of artistic expression might involve processing personal data where strict adherence to consent or purpose limitation principles could be challenging or counterproductive to the public good. The Act’s general but not generous exemptions might not adequately or clearly cover these specific contexts, potentially creating chilling effects beyond traditional journalism.

The proposed amendments fail to address these concerns and have not answered the calls for independent oversight to protect digital privacy. The purpose of the Act may be to protect the rights of citizens but the broad mandate of the DPA will likely not allow the full realisation of rights under the Act without adequate enforcement mechanisms.

With the advent of artificial intelligence and advances in technology, citizens are defenceless in the face of an onslaught upon their right to choose how their private data is used and stored by state entities and private corporations. In this context, we urge the government to consider the guiding principles for States proposed by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Privacy when enacting data privacy laws 2022 (attached): legality, consent, transparency, purpose, fairness, proportionality, minimization, quality, responsibility and security.

We request the government not to hurriedly pass amendments to bring an inadequate law into force. Instead, the government should conduct meaningful consultations with stakeholders and international experts to ensure that the proposed amendments address the concerns that have been raised and comply with international standards.

We request the following steps to be taken:

1. Withdraw the Personal Data Protection Act (amendment) Bill that was placed on the gazette in March 2025.

2. Consult relevant stakeholders and experts on key amendments to be made.

3. Ensure the appointment process for the Board of Directors of the DPA is independent and involves the Constitutional Council.

4. Ensure the proposed amendments are in line with international human rights standards and best practices for digital privacy.

5. Commission a capacity assessment to affirm the readiness of public institutions to comply with the requirements of the Act, and the time and resources required to be fully compliant.

a. Release the results of the assessment to the public.

6. Conduct programmes to raise awareness of the public on the rights and remedies available under the Act to strengthen their ability to hold data controllers to account.

CC: 1. Harshana Nanayakkara, Minister of Justice

2. Eng. Eranga Weeraratne, Deputy Minister of Digital Economy

3. Mr. Waruna Sri Dhanapala, Acting Secretary for the Ministry of Digital Economy

Signatories: Adayaalam Centre for Policy Research,Aham Human Resource Centre,

Alliance for Minorities,Anuradhapura District Citizens Committee,Asia Lanka Social Development Cooperation,Association of War Affected Women,Centre for Society and Religion,Eastern Social Development Foundation,Environment and Community Development Information Centre,Families of the Disappeared,Human Elevation Organisation,Human Rights Law Chambers,Institute of Social Development,International Centre for Ethnic Studies,Jaffna Social Action Centre,Law and Society Trust,Mannar Social and Economic Development Organization,Mannar Women’s Development Federation,Movement for Plantation Peoples’ Land Rights,National Fisheries Solidarity Movement,National Peace Council,RED Organisation,Right to Life,Samadana,Shramabhimani Kendraya,Social Institute for Development of Plantation Sector,Tamil Civil Society Forum,Transparency International Sri Lanka,Uva Shakthi Foundation,Viluthu,Women’s Action Network,Women and Media Collective,Young Journalists Association,Anushani Alagarajah,Visaka Dharmadasa,Sarala Emmanuel,

Brito Fernando,Ruki Fernando,Mario Gomez,Sakuntala Kadirgamar,Herman Kumara,

Jayanthi Kuru-Utumpala,Kandumani Lavakusarasa,Maathumai Paranthaman,Denver Mark Peterson,Maithreyi Rajasingham,Kumudini Samuel,Ambika Satkunanathan,Shreen Saroor,Pathujan Srinagaruban,Sandun Thudugala



News

Courtesy call by the Heads of Mission- Designate on Prime Minister

Published

on

By

The heads of mission designate to Sri Lanka paid a courtesy call on Prime Minister Dr. Harini Amarasuriya on 26th of March at the Prime Minister’s office.

The delegation comprised Dharshana M. Perera, High Commissioner – designate of Sri Lanka to Malaysia, Ms. Dayani Mendis, Ambassador and PRUN – designate of Sri Lanka to Austria, Ms. N.I.D. Paranavitana, Ambassador – designate of Sri Lanka to Ethiopia & African Union, Prof. (Ms.) M.I. Fazeeha Azmi,Ambassador – designate of Sri Lanka to Iran,  Saman Kumara Chandrasiri, Ambassador – designate of Sri Lanka to Israel, and  M. Farook M. Fawzer, Representative – designate of Sri Lanka to Palestine.

The Prime Minister, Dr. Harini Amarasuriya, extended her best wishes to the Heads of Mission–designate and underscored the importance of their forthcoming assignments in advancing Sri Lanka’s national interests emphasizing their collective role in contributing towards the socio-economic upliftment of Sri Lanka.

The Prime Minister further highlighted the importance of projecting a positive and credible image of Sri Lanka internationally, through consistent, professional, and strategic engagement in their respective host countries and multilateral platforms.

She encouraged the Heads of Mission to actively identify and facilitate high-quality investment opportunities, particularly in sectors aligned with Sri Lanka’s development priorities, with a focus on sustainability, innovation, and long-term value addition.

Particular emphasis was placed on the promotion and diversification of Sri Lanka’s exports, including the exploration of new markets and strengthening trade linkages.

The meeting was attended by the Secretary to the Prime Minister, Additional Secretary to the Prime Minister Ms. Sagarika Bogahawatta and heads of mission-designate.

[Prime Minister’s Media Division]

Continue Reading

News

SC finds Keheliya, others, guilty of violating FRs of public through corrupt drug procurement deal

Published

on

The Supreme Court yesterday held former Health Minister Keheliya Rambukwella and several senior health officials liable for violating the fundamental rights of the public over a controversial drug procurement carried out under the 2022 Indian Credit Line.

Delivering the judgment, a three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena, and comprising Justice Kumudini Wickremasinghe and Justice Janak de Silva, found that the procurement of medical supplies from an unregistered company, in breach of established procedures, had resulted in a serious infringement of public rights.

The Court ruled that the granting of a Waiver of Registration by the authorities was “wrongful, arbitrary and capricious,” and held that the direct procurement carried out on an unsolicited basis was unlawful. The transaction was accordingly declared null and void.

In a significant order, the Court directed Rambukwella to pay Rs. 75 million in compensation to the State from his personal funds.

The then Health Ministry Secretary Janaka Chandragupta and former Chairman of the National Medicines Regulatory Authority (NMRA), Prof. S. D. Jayaratne, were each ordered to pay Rs. 50 million.

The Court further directed NMRA Chief Executive Officer Dr. Wijith Gunasekara and former Director of the Medical Supplies Division Dr. Thusitha Sudarshana to pay Rs. 50 million each as compensation.

The ruling followed the hearing of a fundamental rights petition filed by Transparency International Sri Lanka and two other parties.

The Court also instructed the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption to initiate appropriate action under the Anti-Corruption Act against those found responsible.

Senior Counsel Senany Dayaratne, with Nishadi Wickramasinghe, Lasanthika Hettiarachchi, Janani Abeywickrema and Maheshika Bandara, appeared for the petitioners.

Continue Reading

News

Sajith nudges govt. to follow India’s example in giving relief to consumers by slashing taxes on fuel

Published

on

Sajith

Opposition and SJB Leader Sajith Premadasa yesterday urged President Anura Kumara Dissanayake to reduce taxes on fuel, just as the Indian government has done.

He said in a post on X that “Modi government has decided to reduce the Special Additional Excise Duty on petrol and completely remove it for diesel in order to cushion the hardship on the Indian consumer. High time for Anura Kumara Dissanayake to keep up to his election promise and follow suit.”

Meanwhile foreign media reported that India has slashed excise duties on petrol and diesel to protect consumers and rein in a potential spike in inflation, while imposing windfall taxes on aviation fuel and diesel exports, amid volatile global oil markets, as a result of the Iran war.

Global oil prices have surged past $100 per barrel after the near closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which serves as a conduit for 40% of India’s crude oil imports, since the US and Israel first struck Iran on February 28.

In a government order, released late on Thursday, India’s Finance Ministry reduced the special excise duty on petrol to three Indian rupees ($0.0318) per litre from 13 Indian rupees earlier. It also cut the duty on diesel to zero from INR 10 rupees per litre.

The government did not say how much the duty cuts would cost. The move comes ahead of elections next month in four Indian states and one federal territory, with Indian voters known to be extremely sensitive to higher prices.

“Government has taken a huge hit on its taxation revenues to ensure very high losses of oil companies, approximately 24 rupees a litre for petrol and 30 rupees a litre for diesel, at this time of sky high international prices, are reduced,” Indian Oil Minister Hardeep Singh Puri said in a post on X.

Continue Reading

Trending