Government Pledges to Drop Tattoo and Body Mark Provisions from Organised Crime Bill
The government has assured the Supreme Court that controversial provisions concerning tattoos and body marks contained in the proposed Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill will be struck out through formal amendments before the legislation is passed into law.
Assurance Given Before Supreme Court
Solicitor General President's Counsel Viraj Dayaratne, representing the government in proceedings before the Supreme Court, conveyed the commitment to remove the disputed clauses. The assurance came as the landmark Bill continued to face scrutiny from legal quarters over several of its provisions.
The Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill has drawn significant attention since its introduction, with critics raising concerns that certain clauses could be used to target individuals based on physical characteristics such as tattoos and body markings rather than on evidence of actual criminal conduct.
Concerns Over Civil Liberties
Legal observers and civil society groups had flagged the tattoo-related provisions as potentially problematic, warning that they could expose ordinary citizens — particularly young people — to undue suspicion and discrimination under the law. Critics argued that such provisions were overly broad and risked violating fundamental rights guaranteed under the Sri Lankan Constitution.
The government's decision to remove these provisions signals a willingness to address at least some of the objections raised against the Bill, though broader concerns about the legislation's scope and its potential impact on civil liberties are likely to persist.
Bill Aimed at Tackling Organised Crime
The Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill is part of the government's stated drive to strengthen the legal framework against organised criminal networks operating within Sri Lanka. Authorities have maintained that robust legislation is essential to dismantle criminal syndicates that have long posed a challenge to law enforcement.
However, the Bill has remained a subject of intense debate, with petitioners challenging specific provisions before the Supreme Court on the grounds that they infringe upon constitutionally protected rights.
The case is expected to continue, with the court closely examining the remaining provisions of the proposed legislation before it proceeds through Parliament.
💬 Join the Discussion 2
See what readers are saying — and add your view.
good at least they listening for once. but how long to actually amend it?
knowing our goverment probably years machan