encompass internet and online forms of expression. If convicted for contempt of court, Article 105(3) of the Constitution prescribes imprisonment or a fine, or both. Common law defences are codified under the Act, with provisions such as public information not being subject to contempt, information being accurate and without malice or intention to impair justice, and fair comment being included. The draft law on contempt of court proposed by the Law Commission of Sri Lanka in 2008 contains an explanation which recognises the harshness of the then contempt law as follows, ‘Too Harsh a law on contempt can act as a barrier to the development of a healthy and a vibrant jurisprudence. Ideally, a legal system should encourage both spontaneous and reflective criticism of judgements while preserving the sanctity and dignity of the courts and ensuring the smooth and effective administration of Justice’ (Draft Bill on Contempt of Court, 2008). The current Act has significant differences in approaching Contempt as opposed to the draft Bill proposed by the Law Commission. It has also specifically addressed freedom of expression online, reflecting the specific intention of the legislature to restrict and or bring online expression under the purview of the law, unlike the draft law of the Law Commission. A notable incident which raised public interest in the matter of contempt of court was when actor-politician Ranjan Ramanayake’s statements regarding a fundamental rights case relating to the dissolution of Parliament in 2018 were found to be contemptuous by the Supreme Court in 2022; SC Rule 03/19 (Sooriyagoda, 2022). This was his second contempt of court charge, with the first being issued in 2021 in relation to his statements attempting to expose judicial corruption; Sunil Perera v Ranjan Ramanayake. Even though his comments were not originally made online—they were made once on a TV program and the other time as a voice recording to the media—they gained wide traction on social media with everyone expressing an opinion on the judgement. He was sentenced to a four-year prison term by the Supreme Court. An online petition asking for his release gained over 7000 signatures in a few days with support being expressed by many people. Academic Asanga Welikala commented on the 2021 decision stating that it was excessive and a public apology would suffice. He further stated that many countries of the Commonwealth that use English law principles have enacted legislation to regulate contempt of court powers which lie completely at the discretion of the court (Ranawana, 2021). In this regard, a particularly interesting and potentially dangerous development is the recently enacted OSA, which notably includes provisions aimed at preventing contempt of court or statements prejudicial to the authority and impartiality of the judiciary in line with Article 105(3) of the Constitution, i.e. imprisonment or fine, or both (Online Safety Act, 2024). This Act was enacted despite heavy pushback with a record number of 45 petitions challenging the Act at the Bill stage (SC Concludes Hearing of Petitions Challenging Online Safety Bill, 2023). The main argument of the civil society and human rights defenders was that it poses a significant threat to freedom of expression. Originally campaigned as an act to defend women and children from online violence, the OSA’s inclusion of provisions related to contempt of court raises concerns about its broader implications. Critics argue that the Act’s broad scope could have a chilling effect on free speech, especially considering the shrinking civic spaces in Sri Lanka. While it is yet to be seen how the OSA or the CCA will be implemented, the compounding effect of the two laws on online expression will predictably have a stifling, chilling effect on public discourse. - 25 -