The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) stated that it does not see any change in the Emergency Regulations (ERs) issued with the latest extension of the State of Public Emergency, despite the Commission having previously shared its observations with the President. Speaking to The Daily Morning, HRCSL Member/Commissioner, attorney Nimal G. Punchihewa said that the same set of Regulations appears to have been reissued with the extension. Even though the Emergency has been justified on the basis of the need to continue essential services, he said that that justification becomes questionable in relation to several specific provisions. “It was on these issues that we wrote to the President, but, we don’t see that our observations have been addressed when the ERs are extended.”
The extension of the State of Public Emergency will be presented to the Parliament for approval on 6 January, the Defence Ministry announced earlier this week, following the issuance of a Gazette notification extending the Emergency with effect from 29 December of last year (2025). The Gazette Extraordinary was issued by the Secretary to the President Dr. Nandika Sanath Kumanayake.
Under the Constitution, a state of emergency may be declared only for a period of one month at a time, and any extension must be approved by the Parliament within one week, failing which it lapses automatically.
The Emergency was first declared on 28 November 2025 by President and Defence Minister Anura Kumara Dissanayake, through Gazette Extraordinary Number 2464/30, following severe damage caused by Cyclone Ditwah. The proclamation cited the need to ensure public security, maintain public order, and safeguard essential supplies and services in the aftermath of the disaster.
In a detailed letter to the President, the HRCSL recently raised concerns over the Emergency (Miscellaneous Provisions and Powers) Regulations, No. 1 of 2025. The HRCSL noted that the Regulations appear to be based on a standard template used by previous Governments and stated that several provisions are incompatible with the Fundamental Rights Chapter of the Constitution and with international HR standards. Among its observations, the HRCSL pointed out that provisions allowing the requisitioning of buildings or premises “necessary for relief work” are drafted broadly enough to include private residences. It also warned that offences relating to essential services could restrict legitimate trade union activity. The HRCSL further noted that Sections 365 and 365A of the Penal Code, which criminalise voluntary sexual acts between consenting adults, have been included in the Regulations, and reiterated its long-standing call for their repeal to meet Sri Lanka’s international obligations.