{
  "id": 19730543,
  "title": "Judicial Sanction vs. Public Acceptance",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/11/12/judicial-sanction-vs-public-acceptance",
  "topic": "world",
  "section": "World",
  "published": "2026-11-12T23:45:47.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "The Island Sri Lanka",
    "slug": "the-island-sri-lanka",
    "url": "http://island.lk/judicial-sanction-vs-public-acceptance/"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "On 13th November 2026, the Supreme Court (SC) ruled that the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill (PSTB) can pass through Parliament with just a simple majority, provided it undergoes four amendments during the Committee Stage. Among these changes are the requirement for police to apply for extended custody, the substitution of the Court of Appeal with the Supreme Court for judicial oversight, the removal of an unnecessary clause, and the clarification of executive orders subject to judicial review. The SC dismissed claims that the PSTB essentially amounts to a \"PTA Plus,\" emphasizing that the bill includes substantial enhancements over the existing Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA).\n\nNotably, the SC concurred with the Additional Solicitor General's point that the PSTB's provisions should be evaluated based on the specific safeguards embedded within the bill rather than hypothetical scenarios of officers disregarding those safeguards. Furthermore, the SC has attached a chart demonstrating the PSTB's provisions for safeguards and judicial oversight aimed at preventing the misuse of executive power. According to the SC, this evidence refutes the petitioners' argument that the bill lacks sufficient judicial oversight and adequate checks and balances against potential abuse of power. However, critics remain skeptical, asserting that the effectiveness of these safeguards remains to be seen.\n\nThe government is accused of incorporating some of the PTA's most controversial elements into the PSTB while simultaneously stating its commitment to repealing the former. The proposed legislation potentially retains several of the PTA's notorious provisions, such as the admissibility of confessions obtained through police custody and prolonged detention under executive authority, while broadening the scope of extraordinary powers applicable to a wide range of offenses. Consequently, the repeal of one repressive law might merely be a facade if its objectionable features are reintroduced under a different guise.\n\nWhile judicial approval alone does not ensure public acceptance, political legitimacy, or democratic desirability, recent history provides cautionary examples. The 13th Amendment, despite SC scrutiny, led the JVP to resort to violence, resulting in widespread chaos. The 18th Amendment, initially cleared by the SC, faced significant criticism for centralizing presidential power, eroding critical checks and balances, and abolishing the presidential term limit. Revisions to the bill were subsequently enacted by the 19th Amendment. The 20th Amendment restored the President's executive powers, which had been diminished by the 19th Amendment, and lifted the disqualification that barred dual citizens like Basil Rajapaksa from serving in Parliament. However, the 21st Amendment reversed the 20th Amendment, highlighting the complexities and unpredictability of judicial approval alone.\n\nMoreover, judicial endorsement does not replace public scrutiny, accountability, or prudent legislative judgment, as evidenced by the 22nd Amendment, which extended the retirement ages of superior court judges—including the incumbent—suffering strong opposition from the Bar Association of Sri Lanka and international legal bodies over concerns about judicial independence and public trust in the justice system. Despite the PSTB potentially receiving a simple parliamentary majority, it is likely to face continued criticism from various sources, including UN human rights experts, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International, unless significant revisions are made to its objectionable provisions. The government would be prudent to abandon both the PSTB and the proposed Oversight of the Custody Bill (POCB), engage in meaningful stakeholder consultations, and revise these bills in alignment with international human rights standards. Enacting laws that are constitutionally permissible but inconsistent with international obligations and democratic principles lacks merit.",
  "summary": "Friday 13th November, 2026 The Supreme Court (SC) has determined that the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill (PSTB) can be passed by a simple parliamentary majority subject to four amendments at the Committee Stage. The amendments include requiring police applications for extended custody, replacing the Court of Appeal with the Supreme Court for […]",
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}