Sri Lanka
| Author | Victor Gunewardena |
| Pages | 577-623 |
SRI
LANKA
BY
VICTOR GUNEWARDENA
ri
Lanka's media laws are,
to a
large extent, part
of the
island's
colonial
inheritance.
From 1796
until
independence
in
1948,
the
country
was
under British rule.
The
restrictive nature
of
colonial gover-
nance
was
reflected
in the
regulatory framework pertaining
to
freedom
of
speech, expression,
and
publication.
Sri
Lanka's media laws
may be
described
as
having
a
three-tier struc-
ture.
The
first
tier
is the
general
law
relating
to all
forms
of
publication
and
applicable
to all
persons.
The
second tier includes laws relating
to the
print medium.
In the
third
are
laws relating
to the
electronic media
—
radio
and
television.
In the
general
law
category
is the
Penal
Code,
which,
in
respect
of
pub-
lication, sets
out the
offence
of
criminal defamation
and
offences
against
the
state, public decency
or
morals,
and
religion.
As
the
newspaper enterprise
is the
oldest
of the
country's media ven-
tures,
the
laws related
first to it,
particularly with
reference
to the
printing
and
publishing
of
newspapers
and the
better regulation
of
printing
presses.1
Radio broadcasting
was
introduced
in
1925, television
in
1979. Rele-
vant legislation followed each undertaking.
The
restrictive
nature
of the
country's
media
laws
underwent
progres-
sive
change with
the
introduction
of
principles derived from
the
Universal
Declaration
of
Human Rights
and the
International Covenant
on
Civil
and
Political
Rights. Growing liberal jurisprudence also
had
influence.
The Sri
Lanka Constitution
of
1972 contained, among other matters,
guarantees
of
"Fundamental Rights
and
Freedoms," including freedom
of
1.
Newspapers Ordinance
No.
5
of
1839; Printers
and
Publishers Ordinance
No. 1 of
1885;
Printing
Presses
Ordinance
No.
16
of
1902.
577
INTRODUCTION
s
speech, expression,
and
publication.
The
Constitution also provided
for
legal
restrictions
on the
exercise
of
such
rights,
which
made
the
guarantees
not
easily
justiciable.
The
Constitution
of
1978 somewhat enlarged
the
scope
of
some guarantees
and
facilitated
their
justiciability,
although
it
contained
provisions
for the
imposition
of
restrictions
by
statute
and by
regulation.
The
constitutional guarantees notwithstanding, there exist
statutory,
structural,
and
functional constraints
on the
exercise
of
freedom
of
expres-
sion. Government recognition
of
such constraints
led to the
appointment
by the
Minister
of
Media, Tourism
and
Aviation,
in
January 1995,
of a
Committee
to
Advise
on the
Reform
of
Laws
affecting
Media Freedom
and
Freedom
of
Expression.
The
preamble
to the
minister's letter
of
appointment
referred
to the
People's Alliance government's declared media policy, which broadly
identifies
three objectives:
freeing
the
existing media
from
government/political control;
creating
new
institutions, aimed
at
guaranteeing media freedom
as
well
as
raising
the
quality
and
standards
of
free
media,
both
print
and
elec-
tronic;
and
promoting
a new
democratic media culture.
The
Committee submitted
its
report
to the
minister
on 27 May
1996, set-
ting
out
fourteen distinct recommendations
to
rescind
or
drastically
amend certain laws, enlarge
the
scope
of
some other statutes,
and
enact
new
laws
to
fill
legal lacunae
and
strengthen media freedom.
Initially
the
government showed little evidence
it
would implement
the
Committee's recommendations. Consequently, there
was
increasing
pressure
from
journalists' organizations
and
from
human rights activists
for
media
law
reform and,
in
particular,
for
functional
autonomy
of
state-
managed
or
public-funded media institutions.
Then,
in
September 1997,
the
government introduced legislation
to
rescind
the
1978 Amendment
to the
Parliament
(Powers
and
Privileges)
Act
No.
21 of
1953.
The
amendment
Act
vested
in
Parliament
the
power
to
inquire
into
allegations
of
breach
of
privilege.
The
whole House could
sit
as
a
court,
fining
and
punishing concurrently with
the
Supreme Court.
The
amendment
Act was
rescinded without
a
division, thereby restor-
ing
to the
Supreme Court
the
exclusive power
to
hear
cases
of
alleged
breach
of
privilege,
referred
to it by the
Parliamentary Committee
on
Priv-
ilege,
and to
fine
and
punish
offenders.
COUNTRY
REPORTS
578
Sri
Lanka
The
repeal
of the
1978 amendment,
and
three others pertaining
to
par-
liamentary privilege,
was
urged
by the
Media
Law
Reform
Committee.
The
Committee
is
popularly
referred
to as the
R.K.W. Goonesekere committee
after
its
chairman,
who is a
leading fundamental rights lawyer
and a
former
principal
of the Law
College
of Sri
Lanka.
There
is
still
no
move
by the
government
to
repeal
the
other three
amendments. However,
in
September 1997
a
Parliamentary Select Com-
mittee, drawn
from
the
government
and the
opposition,
was
appointed
to
consider
and
make recommendations
on the
following:
the
establishment
of an
authority
to
facilitate
the
development
of a
broadcasting industry
in Sri
Lanka, which
is
efficient,
competitive,
and
responsive
to
consumer needs;
to
ensure that pluralism
is
achieved
in
broadcasting
as a
whole;
and to
provide
for
- the
composition
of
an
authority that
is
independent
in
character;
- the
regulatory
and
licensing powers
that
may
be
conferred
on
such
an
authority,
and
powers
to
ensure that there
is no
racial
or
political bias
in
reporting;
and
-
matters connected therewith
or
incidental
thereto,
the
repeal
of Sri
Lanka
Press
Council
Law No. 5 of
1973;
the
repeal
or
amendment
of
legislative enactments that impose serious
limitations
on the
freedom
of
expression
and the
independence
of the
media;
the
establishment
of a
Media Council
to
promote
the
freedom
and
responsibility
of
both
the
print
and
electronic media,
the
right
to
infor-
mation
of
citizens,
and the
maintenance
of
high standards
of
communi-
cation ethics;
the
provision
of
guidelines
for
government advertising;
the
criteria
for
ensuring
the
independence
of the
Council
and the
powers
that
may be
conferred
on the
Council;
and
matters connected therewith
or
incidental thereto.
Members
of the
public have been invited
to
make written representations
to the
Select Committee.
It is
against this background
that
the
current status
of Sri
Lanka's mass
media,
the
structure
of
their ownership,
and the
regulation
of
freedom
of
expression must
be
examined.
579
To continue reading
Request your trial