The Supreme Court began hearing 26 petitions on Wednesday challenging the constitutionality of the Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill, a day after the number stood at 20.

Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena nominated a three-member bench to hear the petitions, with Justices Achala Wengappuli and Sampath Abayakoon sitting alongside him. The hearing was scheduled for 10 a.m.

Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne told Parliament on Wednesday that he had received copies of six more petitions. Deputy Speaker Rizvie Salih had informed the House on Tuesday that 20 petitions had been filed.

The petitions were filed under Article 121(1) of the Constitution, which allows the Supreme Court to be asked whether a Bill is consistent with the Constitution before Parliament votes on it.

According to the petitions, certain provisions of the Bill violate fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The petitioners have asked the Court to determine that those provisions can be passed only with a two-thirds majority in Parliament and approval at a referendum. The Bar Association of Sri Lanka is among the parties that filed petitions.

Background

The Bill was published in a Gazette Supplement issued on 6 October 2026 and tabled in Parliament on 20 October. It aims to give effect to the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organised Crime and to support national and international cooperation in preventing, investigating and prosecuting serious offences.

Under the special determination procedure, citizens and organisations can ask the Supreme Court to examine a Bill once it has been placed before Parliament. The Court then tells the Speaker whether any clause conflicts with the Constitution and, if so, what majority is needed to pass it.

A determination that a clause is inconsistent with the Constitution can mean the clause must be amended, or that the Bill needs a two-thirds majority, and in some cases approval at a referendum, before it becomes law.

What it means

The Court’s determination will decide how the Government can proceed with the Bill. Parliament cannot pass it in its present form until the Court’s decision has been communicated to the Speaker.

For readers, the case concerns how far the powers set out in the Bill can be reconciled with rights protected by the Constitution. The petitioners say some provisions go beyond those limits, and the Court will examine that claim.

The Court has not yet announced when it will deliver its determination.