On the 28th of November 2025 President Anura Kumara Dissanayake declared a nationwide state of emergency, and simultaneously gazetted Emergency Regulations to address the humanitarian crisis caused by Cyclone Ditwah. It was declared against a backdrop that allowed the President to declare a State of Disaster that gives broader powers related to disaster management to various authorities under the Disaster Management Act, No. 13 of 2005. 

It is concerning that Sri Lanka reverted to a state of emergency, regardless of Sri Lanka’s past experiences with natural disasters and the tapestry of laws and frameworks in place. Under the Disaster Management Act, a key function of the National Council for Disaster Management is to ‘facilitate emergency response, recovery, relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction in the event of any disaster’, a function which would have been directly relevant to the present crisis. This raises the question of why a state of emergency, intended to be exercised only in circumstances where the ordinary laws of the country are insufficient to protect public safety, was declared in the first place. 

Even assuming that, in the extraordinary circumstances of this disaster, a state of emergency was warranted, the particular emergency regulations gazetted raise serious concerns. A vast amount of the regulations focuses on criminal offences that raises questions of relevance to the disaster. Several of them bear striking similarities to unjustified offences contained in previous Emergency Regulations, raising questions as to whether parts of previous regulations have simply been duplicated without consideration to the situation at hand. There have been several instances in the post war period in 2018, 2019, 2021 and three instances in 2022 where the accompanying Emergency Regulations have been overbroad, giving the Executive extraordinary powers which are beyond those necessary for the management of the emergency at hand.

A state of emergency, even in exceptional circumstances, concentrates extensive power in the executive and weakens the ordinary constitutional safeguards that protect against overreach. Emergency Regulations allow the President to override ordinary laws, blur the separation of powers, and restrict fundamental rights with few substantive limits. In the past, Parliamentary oversight and judicial review have often been weak, increasing the risk of disproportionate or opaque use of emergency powers. The legal framework also permits restrictions that go beyond international human rights standards, including limits on non-discrimination. Independent of emergency powers, the government also has recourse to the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). These antiterrorism powers are extensive, and their use is not subject to the formal requirement of continuous parliamentary approval as in the case of emergency powers.

The state of public emergency has been extended from February 28, 2026 raising fears of whether history is repeating itself. The Centre for Policy Alternatives and its Executive Director Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, filed a Petition on the 19th December 2025 in the Supreme Court challenging the Emergency (Miscellaneous Provisions and Powers) Regulations No. 1 of 2025 gazetted by Extraordinary Gazette No. 2464/26 dated 28th November 2025. The National People’s Power came into power on a promise of systemic change. Therefore, it is imperative that they do not continue the cycle in which states of emergency become the immediate response to a crisis.