A critical human rights discussion has been ignited in Sri Lanka following the government’s proposal to amend the Penal Code to prohibit corporal and psychological punishment. While the objective to protect children from physical and mental abuse is fundamentally sound and aligned with international human rights standards, the specific language of the bill introduces a legal ambiguity that threatens effective discipline in schools and homes. Crucially, this legislative reform fails to address the most severe, systemic threats facing our children and adolescents.
The Peril of Vague Legislation: ‘However Light’
The core concern lies with the proposed Section 308b. (1), which seeks to criminalise two types of acts by custodians:
- (a) A physical act, used as punishment, with knowledge that it is likely to cause some degree of pain or discomfort however light.
- (b) A non-physical act, with knowledge that it is likely to cause humiliation however light.
By criminalizing actions leading to “discomfort however light” or “humiliation however light,” the law moves from preventing torture to penalizing subjectivity. As correctly identified by legal expert Prof. Rohan Samarajiva, the phrase “however light” must be removed.
The primary human rights flaw here is the lack of clear legal thresholds. Who defines “light discomfort” or “light humiliation”? This ambiguity creates a legal crisis ripe for misuse and overreach, mirroring the challenges seen with the ICCPR Act, which, despite its good intent, has been weaponised to suppress freedom of expression. Our focus must remain on preventing acts of torture and severe abuse, which are often driven by adult frustration and anger, rather than criminalizing necessary, proportionate disciplinary measures.
Failure to Prioritize the Gravest Human Rights Violations
The government’s urgent attention is needed for the alarming, documented crises facing children. Data from the Women and Children’s Bureau of Police shows a horrific 1,344 girls were raped in the first seven months of 2025, underscoring the urgency of tackling Sexual and Gender-Based Violence (SGBV).
Furthermore, systemic issues enable child vulnerability:
- Child Marriage and Pregnancy: Data indicates over 15,000 young women aged 15-19 become pregnant annually, driven by weak marriage and divorce laws. UNICEF reports that 11% of women aged 20-24 were married before age 18, leading to interrupted education, family violence, and mental health issues.
- Drug Trafficking: Children, particularly boys, are actively targeted by traffickers. Teachers are forced to manage drug use within schools, whereas public legal mechanisms such as remand, probation, or military-run rehabilitation are often ineffective and detrimental to a child’s welfare.
The Crisis of Discipline and Support
Teachers are already struggling with complex issues, including mobile phone addiction, the spread of pornography, poor academic results, and disciplinary incidents. The recent media report of a student assaulting a teacher in a Monaragala school over a mobile phone highlights the daily erosion of authority.
Priyantha Fernando, Chairman of the Ceylon Teachers’ Union, warns that the fear of arrest under this ambiguous law may cause teachers to entirely withdraw from disciplinary measures, further destabilizing the learning environment.
Children and parents also face systemic challenges: inadequate state education, the crippling cost of tuition, long and unsafe commutes, and bullying/violence from principals, teachers, and student prefects.
The Right to Life Human Rights Centre maintains that genuine child protection is a two-fold obligation:
- Vigorously prosecuting individuals responsible for torture, SGBV, and severe abuse.
- Empowering parents and teachers with clear, positive discipline guidelines and the assurance that reasonable, non-violent disciplinary action will not result in criminal prosecution.
Legislation must draw a clear, defensible line between abuse and effective instruction. Without this clarity, the law risks being an ineffective instrument that sacrifices a teacher’s authority while failing to protect the child from the true threats of violence and neglect.