Legal Treatment of Internet Access as a Rights Issue in Sri Lanka

1. Introduction

Internet access is increasingly treated globally as a human rights–linked necessity, because it enables:

• Freedom of expression
• Access to information
• Education and work opportunities
• Political participation
• Digital public services (e-government, e-health, banking)

In Sri Lanka, however, internet access is not yet explicitly recognized as a fundamental right in the Constitution. Instead, it is indirectly protected through broader rights such as freedom of expression under Article 14(1)(a).

This creates a legal situation where internet access is:

• Not a standalone right
• But increasingly treated as a derivative or enabling right

2. Constitutional Position in Sri Lanka

(A) No explicit right to internet access

Sri Lanka’s Constitution:

• Does NOT explicitly guarantee internet access
• Does NOT define digital connectivity as a fundamental right

(B) Indirect protection

Internet-related rights are derived from:

• Article 14(1)(a): Freedom of expression
• Article 14A: Right to information

However, these are subject to restrictions for:

• National security
• Public order
• Morality

Courts therefore treat internet access as:

A facilitating tool for expression, not an independent constitutional entitlement.

3. Judicial Attitude in Sri Lanka

Sri Lankan courts have generally:

1. Accepted government regulatory power over internet

• Website blocking cases
• Registration requirements for online media

2. Not recognized a standalone “right to internet access”

Even when internet restrictions are challenged, courts tend to:

• Focus on freedom of expression arguments
• Avoid declaring internet access itself as a fundamental right

A key early case showed this approach (see below).

4. Legal and Policy Framework

(A) Telecommunications Regulation

• Telecommunications Regulatory Commission of Sri Lanka (TRCSL)
• Controls ISP licensing, filtering, and network regulations

(B) Cyber laws impacting access

• Computer Crimes Act No. 24 of 2007
• Online Safety Act No. 9 of 2024 (content regulation)
• Emergency regulations during unrest (temporary internet restrictions)

(C) Policy environment

• No formal “Right to Internet Act”
• Government policy focuses on:
  • Digital economy expansion
  • E-government services
  • Cybersecurity control

5. Key Legal Issues in Internet Access Rights

1. Internet shutdowns and restrictions

Sri Lanka has previously restricted or slowed internet during:

• Civil unrest
• National emergencies
• Security operations

2. Platform blocking and content regulation

Government has:

• Blocked websites
• Regulated online news portals
• Required registration of websites

3. Affordability and digital divide

Legal scholars highlight:

• Unequal access between rural and urban areas
• High cost of broadband services
• Limited infrastructure in remote regions

4. Lack of enforceable “access right”

Citizens cannot directly sue for:

• Poor connectivity
• Expensive internet
• Lack of infrastructure rollout

6. Case Laws (At Least 6 Relevant Decisions)

Sri Lanka has no case explicitly declaring internet access as a fundamental right, but courts have addressed internet-related freedom of expression issues. These cases are crucial in shaping the legal position.

1. Free Media Movement v. Ministry of Mass Media (Website Blocking Case, 2012)

Principle:

Government imposed registration requirements on news websites and blocked non-compliant sites.

Court position:

• Supreme Court refused to proceed with the petition
• Upheld broad regulatory discretion of the state

Relevance:

Shows judicial reluctance to limit state control over internet access.

2. Karunatilaka v. Dayananda Dissanayake (Freedom of Expression Case)

Principle:

Freedom of expression is essential to democracy but not absolute.

Relevance:

Internet access is treated as part of expression, but can be restricted lawfully.

3. Visuvalingam v. Liyanage (Language Rights Case – Fundamental Rights Interpretation)

Principle:

Fundamental rights must be interpreted broadly to protect democratic values.

Relevance:

This reasoning is often cited to argue that internet access could be implied under Article 14(1)(a).

4. Amaratunga v. Sirimal (Public Service & Rights Enforcement Case)

Principle:

State actions affecting rights must be reasonable and proportionate.

Relevance:

Internet shutdowns or restrictions could be challenged on proportionality grounds.

5. Joseph Perera v. Attorney General (Free Speech Case)

Principle:

Restrictions on speech must not destroy the essence of the right.

Relevance:

Blocking internet platforms may violate constitutional expression rights if excessive.

6. Channa Pieris v. Attorney General (Police Powers Case)

Principle:

State power must be exercised lawfully and not arbitrarily.

Relevance:

Internet restrictions during emergencies must be legally justified.

7. Liyanage v. The Queen (Rule of Law Principle Case)

Principle:

State cannot act beyond constitutional limits even in emergencies.

Relevance:

Supports argument against arbitrary internet shutdowns.

8. Gunaratne v. People’s Bank (Administrative Fairness Case)

Principle:

Decisions affecting rights must follow fairness and due process.

Relevance:

Supports requirement for transparency in ISP restrictions or digital blocking decisions.

7. Comparative Judicial Trend (Important Context)

Although Sri Lanka has not recognized internet access as a right, globally courts have moved toward recognition:

• India: Internet shutdowns subject to strict proportionality review
• UN Human Rights Council: Internet access is an enabler of expression
• Several jurisdictions treat connectivity as essential infrastructure

Sri Lanka has not fully adopted this approach yet, but academic and policy pressure is increasing.

8. Emerging Legal Developments in Sri Lanka

1. Online Safety Act 2024

• Expands regulation of online content
• Raises concerns about free expression and access

2. Digital government policies

• Push for e-services increases dependency on internet access

3. Cybersecurity frameworks

• Focus on control and security rather than rights-based access

9. Critical Analysis

A. Internet access as an “enabling right”

In Sri Lanka, courts implicitly treat internet access as:

• A tool for freedom of expression
• Not an independent enforceable right

B. Gap in constitutional protection

Major gaps include:

• No right to digital inclusion
• No protection against internet shutdowns
• No affordability guarantees

C. Judicial caution

Courts:

• Avoid expanding fundamental rights too aggressively
• Prefer leaving telecom policy to the executive

10. Conclusion

In Sri Lanka, internet access is currently treated as a derivative right linked to freedom of expression, rather than an independent constitutional right. Courts have not yet recognized a standalone enforceable right to internet access, and state regulatory authority over digital networks remains strong.

However, through cases such as Free Media Movement, Joseph Perera, and Channa Pieris, Sri Lankan jurisprudence indirectly supports the idea that internet restrictions must be:

• Lawful
• Reasonable
• Proportionate
• Non-arbitrary

The legal direction suggests that Sri Lanka is still in a transitional phase, moving gradually toward recognizing internet access as a functional necessity for constitutional rights, but not yet elevating it to a full fundamental right.