Case Summary and Outcome

The Sri Lanka Human Rights Commission ruled that the arrest and travel restrictions imposed on Natasha Edirisuriya—a comedian—by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) and Immigration Department violated Articles 13(1) (freedom from arbitrary arrest), 12 (right to equality before law), and 14(1)(a) (freedom of speech) of the Constitution of Sri Lanka. Edirisuriya was detained at the airport and remanded for alleged derogatory remarks about Buddhism, despite the lack of a prior court order or a thorough investigation. The Commission found that her remarks did not incite religious hatred or demean Buddhist teachings, rather they engaged the audience of a comedic show through satirical commentary. The Commission found a lack of evidence produced by the authorities to justify Edirisuriya’s arrest under Sri Lankan law. Emphasizing freedom of speech, the Commission recommended the payment of compensation to Edirisuriya (Rs. 50,000 (approx. USD 170)) and legal reforms to prevent unlawful arrests.

---

Facts

On April 1, 2023, Natasha Edirisuriya, a stand-up comedian, hosted an episode of “Modabhimana 3,” a comedy show at the Colombo Bishop’s College Auditorium. Her show satirized the competitive nature of Sri Lankan parents by depicting an imaginary parent from Lord Buddha’s era, comparing their child to young Siddhartha or Lord Buddha (“Sudhodhana’s child”). In this portrayal, she mimicked a parent’s comparison, stating, “Suddhodana’s child [the Buddha] walked on the very day he was born…..but look at these children; their heads droop even when you try to hold them up… Suddhodana’s little one recited a poem on the day of his birth, yet these children… Suddhodana’s son decided on the day of his birth what he would do when he grows up…” [p. 4]

On May 23, 2023, the episode was aired on the Colombo Comedy Central YouTube channel. On May 24, 2023, Edirisuriya uploaded it on her personal YouTube channel. Following its dissemination on the internet and social media, people accused Edirisuriya of insulting Buddhism, a religion widely practised in Sri Lanka. Edirisuriya was targeted with disparaging remarks and threats. On May 26, 2023, Edirisuriya and Colombo Comedy Central issued a public apology and removed the video.

On May 27, 2023, Venerable Reverend Attaragama Panjalankara Thero of Sisila Buddhist Centre, lodged a formal complaint against Edirisuriya with the Computer Crime Investigation Division. He alleged that Edirisuriya’s video was offensive and disseminated “hateful, malicious and defamatory remarks against Lord Buddha and Buddhism” while denigrating their traditions. [p. 4] The reverend contended that the comedian’s content caused “unrest, confusion, and disharmony among those who believe in and adhere to the Buddhist philosophy.” [p. 3-4] Other Buddhist priests filed complaints against Edirisuriya. The Commissioner of Buddhist Affairs also filed a complaint.

On the same day, Edirisuriya and her partner were departing from Sri Lanka to travel to Singapore. However, officers from the Department of Immigration and Emigration detained Edirisuriya at the Bandaranaike International Airport before she departed. They had received a written directive from the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) stating, “Until we get court order, if she try to go abroad, please arrest her and produce to Computer Crime Investigation Unit.” [p. 8] The immigration officials handed Edirisuriya over to the CID.

On May 28, 2023, Edirisuriya was brought before the Magistrate and was remanded in custody. She was charged under sections 120 (exciting or attempting to excite disaffection), 291A (deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person), 291B (deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of persons) of the Penal Code of Sri Lanka and Section 6 (offences committed against national security) of the Computer Crimes Act. She was also charged under Section 3 (incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence) of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Act No. 56 of 2007. Edirisuriya’s multiple bail applications were denied.

On July 5, the Magistrate remanded Edirisuriya to further custody until July 12. However, the High Court overruled this order and granted her bail.  Subsequently, Edirisuriya’s sister filed a complaint to the Sri Lanka Human Rights Commission on her behalf.

---

Decision Overview

Justice L.T.B Dehideniya, Chairman of the Sri Lanka Human Rights Commission delivered the judgment of the Commission. The main issue it analyzed was whether Edirisuriya’s arrest, in light of her comments regarding Buddhism during a comedy show, violated Articles 13(1) (freedom from arbitrary arrest), 12 (right to equality before law), and 14(1)(a) (freedom of speech) of the Constitution of Sri Lanka

Edirisuriya alleged that “she was unlawfully arrested, denied the equal protection of the law, and deprived of her freedom of expression.” [p. 7] Highlighting the events of May 27, 2023, she claimed that immigration officers obstructed her from traveling to Singapore, and informed her of the travel ban without producing any official documentation regarding it. She accused immigration officers of handing her over to the CID without specifying “concrete grounds for the action.” [p. 3] Edirisuriya claimed that the CID did not grant her “access to legal counsel or a meeting with her relatives.” [p. 3] She claimed that her comedic books were seized from her residence and that the entire process of her arrest, and the seizure of her books, was maliciously covered by media personnel.

Lucky Randeniya (Senior Superintendent of the Police), Chandima Arumapperuma (Assistant Superintendent of the Police), and Subhasingha (Officer in Charge from the CID), submitted that Edirisuriya made “malicious and hateful remarks” against Buddhist religion and disturbed religious harmony. They contended that Edirisuriya’s remarks were derogatory, trivialized Buddhist teachings, and disrespected the beliefs of the Buddhist community. They argued that these remarks could provoke unrest and incite hostility between different religious communities. They submitted that Edirisuriya was detained at the airport to prevent her departure from Sri Lanka which could hinder the ongoing investigation of the criminal complaints filed against her. The respondents alleged that Edirisuriya was informed of the grounds of her arrest and was duly produced before the Magistrate—who remanded her into custody.

The Controller General of the Immigration and Emigration Department submitted that it detained Edirisuriya after receiving a written directive from the CID. They contended that they lawfully prevented Edirisuriya from leaving the country and informed her of the CID’s order.

The Commission examined whether the detention and arrest of Edirisuriya at Bandaranaike International Airport on May 27, 2023, complied with the legal framework governing arrests and travel restrictions. Article 13(1) of the Constitution of Sri Lanka mandates that no person shall be arrested except under the procedure established by law.

The Commission observed that any restriction on an individual’s liberty must be grounded in lawful authority. The Commission was informed by Randeniya that the Sri Lanka Police lacks formal guidelines on travel restrictions but typically obtains a court order to prevent suspects in criminal cases from leaving the country. Considering this, the Commission found that the directive to detain Edirisuriya at the airport was issued without obtaining a prior court order, therefore it did not adhere to the established legal framework and lacked transparency.

The Commission observed that CID officials cannot make an arrest upon a “general or vague suspicion” or without any “diligent or proper investigation.” [p. 15-16] Relying on Ganesan Samson Roy v A.M.M Janaka Marasinghe, Officer-in-Charge, Criminal Investigation Department SCFR 405/2018, Mohamed Razik Massi v A.B.M.S.K. Senaratne, Officer-in-charge, Criminal Investigation Department, Dharmasena v Sanjeewa Mahanama and Others (1 Sri LR 81), and Emil Ranjan v. The Attorney General, the Commission held that an arrest should be “grounded on a reasonable suspicion, information or complaint.” [p. 15]

The Commission noted that the comedian’s arrest was based on a complaint received on the morning of May 27, 2023, and that the order to detain Edirisuriya was issued within hours before a comprehensive investigation had been conducted. On this point, the Commission acknowledged the order of the High Court granting bail to Edirisuriya and highlighted Judge M. Patabedige’s words in the bail order: “In the absence of such an assessment, it would be improper to effect an arrest solely predicated upon a complaint.” [p. 16]

Subsequently, the Commission referred to the cases of Navasivayam v. Gunawardena and Kapugeekiyana v. Hettiarachchi. In the Navaivayam case, the police initially allowed the complainant to leave after questioning, but later intercepted his vehicle, without permitting him to continue his journey. The Court deemed it an unlawful arrest. In the Kapugeekiyana case, the Court affirmed that, under the Code of Criminal Procedure (1979), “a person may be arrested based on a reasonable complaint or reasonable suspicion, provided there are legitimate grounds to substantiate such suspicion.” [p. 9] In light of this case law, the Commission argued that the law does not permit arrests based on unfounded assumptions. Thus, it deemed Randeniya’s assertion that Edirisuriya’s departure could incite public unrest speculative and insufficient to justify her detention.

The Commission further considered whether CID officials properly examined if Edirisuriya had committed any offense under section 3(1) of the ICCPR Act. Section 3(1) prohibits any person from advocating racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence. The Commission noted that this provision mirrors Article 20(2) of the ICCPR treaty and therefore, must be construed together with Article 19 (right to freedom of expression) of the ICCPR. The Commission clarified that “mere advocacy of hatred does not fall within the ambit of section 3 unless it is accompanied by an intentional incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence.” [p. 10]

Hence, the Commission held that two elements must be met to breach Section 3: (1) advocate national, racial, or religious hatred and (2) incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence. To determine if these elements were satisfied, the Commission referred to the Rabat Plan of Action formulated by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). It is a six-part high threshold test for defining restrictions on freedom of expression and incitement to hatred. It considers factors such as the context, the speaker’s influence, their intent, the content of the statement, the extent of its reach, and the potential for imminent harm.

The Commission reviewed the investigative notes of the CID officials involved in the case and found that they did not mention any potential religious or communal conflict at the time of the statement and that the public only became aware of the issue after it was posted on YouTube. The Commission stated that Edirisuriya made the statements as part of her entertainment role as a stand-up comic, which was overlooked by the authorities during the investigation. The Commission emphasized that the statements made during the “Modabhimani” program were perceived as entertainment by the audience and did not incite violence or hostility. It determined too that Edirisuriya made satirical remarks to allow the audience to reflect on “the tendency of parents to compare their children’s skills and abilities with others.” [p. 20] The Commission noted that her expression encouraged “parents to recognize and appreciate their children’s individuality without intending to insult religious beliefs.” [p. 20]

The Commission opined that CID officials failed to conduct a “thorough investigation into the circumstances surrounding [Edirisuriya’s] arrest.” [p. 14] Moreover, it concluded that CID officials failed to adequately consider the essential elements required for an offence under section 3 of the ICCPR Act. Ultimately, the Court held that Edirisuriya’s arrest violated Article 13(1) of the Constitution, as it failed to meet the procedural requirements and disclose well-founded reasons for the arrest.

The Commission noted that several procedural requirements under the ICCPR Act were violated, including the failure to consult with the Director of the Legal Division before making any arrest, and the failure to adhere to the directives issued by the Inspector General of the Police—which are intended to prevent unlawful arrests. The Commission held that these violations amounted to an infringement of Article 12 of the Constitution.

Lastly, the Commission examined whether Edirisuriya’s freedom of expression, as guaranteed under Article 14(1)(a) of the Constitution of Sri Lanka, was violated. The Commission cited Article 19 (freedom of expression) of the ICCPR and acknowledged that this freedom could be limited under Article 15(2) and Article 15(7)(a) of the Constitution and Article 20 of the ICCPR. Article 15(2) of the Constitution provides restrictions in the interests of racial and religious harmony. Article 15(7)(a) of the Constitution provides restrictions in the interests of national security, public order, and the protection of public health or morality. Article 20(2) of the ICCPR treaty prohibits advocacy of racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to violence. Based on this and the Rabat Plan of Action, the Commission assessed Edirisuriya’s performance and found that it did not fall within any of the legally recognized limitations.

The Commission ruled that Edirisuriya’s “expression was not made in a political, religious, or educational context, but rather in a forum meant to entertain and engage the audience through satirical commentary.” [p. 20] The Commission determined that Edirisuriya’s “intent was not to direct any individual to question religious beliefs or to incite animosity towards any person on the basis of religion, either directly or indirectly.” [p. 20] The Commission considered there was no credible evidence to support the CID officials’ allegations against Edirisuriya and concluded that the comedian’s statement “[did] not advocate for religious hatred, nor [did] they incite discrimination, hostility, or violence” [p. 21]—therefore, she did not violate section 3(1) of the ICCPR Act.

The Commission noted the CID officials’ failure to produce supporting evidence that Edirisuriya’s statements could be restricted under Article 15 of the Constitution. Thus, it argued that Edirisuriya’s freedom of expression had been violated. The Commission reiterated Justice Sharvananda’s remarks in Joseph Perera alias Bruten Perera v. The Attorney General that “…..all ideas having even the slightest social importance, unorthodox ideas, controversial ideas, even ideas hateful to the prevailing climate of opinion have the protection of the constitutional guarantee of free speech and expression.” [p. 22]

To conclude, the Commission held that Randeniya, Arumapperuma, and Subhasingha, violated articles 12, 13(1), and 14(1)(a) of the Constitution and that the Controller General of the Immigration and Emigration Department violated Article 12. The Commission recommended the Inspector General of the Police to investigate the conduct of Randeniya, Arumapperuma, and Subhasingha, and to formulate updated detention guidelines and training programs for police officers on relevant laws. Additionally, it recommended the Controller General to collaborate with the Inspector General to establish clear protocols for travel restrictions and detentions. Lastly, the Commission recommended Randeniya, Arumapperuma, and Subhasingha,  to collectively compensate Edirisuriya with Rs. 50,000 (approx USD 170) for the harm she suffered.

---