Problem Statement
Freedom of Expression and Restrictions in Sri Lanka During the Digital
and AI Age
The Constitution of Sri Lanka guarantees freedom of speech and expression under Article
14(1)(a) and recognizes receiving information (right to information) by Article 14A. Article
15 permits imposing restrictions on freedoms of Article 14, grounded in national security,
public order, racial and religious harmony, parliamentary privilege, and defamation.
Although these provisions provide constitutional pillars of public participation, media
freedom, and citizen engagement, the articles are not compatible with managing the modern
developments associated with the online sphere, including social media, algorithmic systems,
AI-generated content, and cross-border data flows. Consequently, there is an urgent need to
expand the scope of Article 14 to include digital developments, and at the same time, there
should be a revisit on restrictions of Article 15.
Article 15 has a significant constitutional deficiency because it lacks structured
proportionality standards, demonstrable necessities, and proportionality to the harm they seek
to address. At the same time, there should be a mandate for robust safeguards such as
transparency, independent oversight, and effective judicial review.
Furthermore, in the digital age, restrictions no longer operate with conventional censorship or
post-publication liability. The functional process of restrictions has expanded to platform
removals, selective bans, internet shutdowns, chilling effects, and liabilities over sharing,
reposting, and commenting. Consequently, constitutional guarantees are increasingly
intertwined with new mechanisms such as online governance, platform rules, and automated
enforcement instruments. These are difficult to scrutinize or challenge through ordinary and
existing legal remedies.
This dangerous gap has already created vague and overbroad legal provisions, selective
enforcement, and politically motivated suppression. Therefore, the threat is not only direct
censorship but also indirect suppression with legal uncertainty, fear of prosecution, and unfair
algorithmic moderation practices.
At the same time, Sri Lanka struggles with rising online harms, including hate speech,
coordinated and organized disinformation, harassment, and AI-driven deepfakes. An effective
and meaningful regulatory approach to counter the issues has not yet been developed. The
prime constitutional challenge is that necessary regulation does not turn into excessive state
control.
As recognized by the modern constitutional democracies, freedom of expression may be
limited only through structured standards that are consistent with legality, legitimate aim,
necessity, and proportionality. Meaningful judicial enforcement is also a key player in this
scenario. For instance, European constitutional approaches highlight proportionality review
and balancing expression against competing rights like dignity, equality, and privacy.
Moreover, most of the constitutional systems of the global south concern access to
information and digital participation as essential conditions for democratic citizenship. These
are highlighted that constitutional reforms should touch not only state censorship but also the
expanding power of private platforms.
Accordingly, the key constitutional challenge is how to modernize the relationship between
Article 14, Article 15, and Article 14A. The main outcome must protect freedom of
expression in practice and not merely in theory, which allows limited and carefully designed
regulation to address genuine online harms. This should be developed with a clear, precise,
and evidence-based constitutional approach. In this process restrictions on speech are
supported by proper procedures, transparency, and safeguards against abuse. There must be
strong protection for public interest speech and a clear definition of the State’s responsibility
to guarantee meaningful access to information, with the special concern of the digital
environment, where AI systems and online platforms increasingly shape the scenario. In the
absence of such development, Sri Lanka risks either failing to control digital harms that
undermine democratic life or imposing excessive restrictions that weaken constitutional
governance itself.