Dharma Court proposal sparks a constitutional storm as the UNP warns of state overreach into Buddhist clergy discipline and temple affairs.
The Dharma Court proposal has pushed Sri Lanka into a heated constitutional and political dispute, with opposition parties warning that the government may be crossing legal boundaries in Buddhist affairs.
The controversy follows the government’s reported move to explore the creation of a so-called “Dharma Court,” a proposed mechanism intended to address disciplinary issues within the Buddhist clergy. The idea, reportedly discussed in a concept paper approved at Cabinet level, has triggered immediate resistance from the United National Party, which argues that such a body would exceed the state’s legal and constitutional authority.
According to the UNP, neither the executive, legislature, nor judiciary has the constitutional mandate to interpret or adjudicate matters of “Dharma.” The party argues that Dharma falls outside the scope of state law and cannot be placed under a government-controlled mechanism.
The UNP further insists that although Parliament has authority under Article 105 of the Constitution to legislate on disciplinary mechanisms relating to clergy conduct, the final authority over monastic discipline rests within the internal structures of Buddhist sects themselves. This position places religious governance within ecclesiastical institutions rather than state-managed legal frameworks.
The controversy emerged after recent remarks by President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, who stated that a concept paper had been submitted to amend the Vihara–Devalagam Act and had received Cabinet approval.
The President also said discussions had taken place with senior officials, including the Registrar of Buddhist Affairs and the Attorney General. However, questions are now being raised over whether wider political consultation, especially with opposition Buddhist parliamentarians, took place before the proposal moved forward.
The debate has since expanded beyond procedure into a wider ideological clash over the relationship between the state and religion.
Critics argue that the proposal risks politicising Buddhist institutional governance and weakening long-standing traditions of monastic autonomy. Supporters, however, say stronger legal mechanisms may be needed to address misconduct within religious institutions and protect the integrity of the Sangha.
A strongly worded statement attributed to former President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s office has further escalated the dispute, directly challenging the moral and historical legitimacy of the current government’s approach.
The statement referred to past political violence and accused the ruling Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna of having a controversial historical record in relation to Buddhist clergy, citing incidents from the late 1980s. It also questioned whether a party with such a history could legitimately oversee reforms affecting Buddhist institutions.
These claims have introduced highly sensitive historical grievances into an already volatile policy debate.
Observers note that references to past violence involving monks could deepen political polarisation at a time when Sri Lanka is still navigating post-crisis recovery and attempting to stabilise its governance institutions.
The inclusion of historical accusations has also drawn criticism for shifting the conversation away from constitutional and administrative concerns toward emotionally charged political narratives.
At the centre of the dispute is the constitutional uncertainty surrounding religious governance in Sri Lanka.
While Article 105 allows Parliament to legislate on matters relating to clergy discipline, legal scholars and political actors remain divided over how far the state can intervene in internal religious affairs without violating religious autonomy.
The UNP maintains that any attempt to create a parallel adjudicatory body such as a “Dharma Court” could blur the line between state authority and religious doctrine.
Supporters of reform argue that existing legal frameworks may not be sufficient to deal with misconduct within religious institutions, especially in cases involving public order, financial irregularities, or reputational harm to major faith communities.
Opponents, however, warn that formalising state-led religious adjudication could politicise sacred institutions and weaken the independence of monastic orders that have functioned for centuries under their own disciplinary systems.
The debate has also revived references to earlier constitutional arrangements, including provisions introduced during the 1978 constitutional era, which allowed mechanisms to address misconduct among clergy.
Critics of the current proposal argue that those systems already provided structured pathways for discipline without creating new quasi-judicial religious bodies.
Beyond the legal and political arguments, the controversy reflects deeper social tensions over identity, governance, and the role of Buddhism in the Sri Lankan state.
Some political voices accuse the government of attempting to centralise control over temple assets and religious institutions, particularly those governed under the Vihara–Devalagam framework.
Others view the proposed reforms as part of a broader effort to modernise institutional oversight and reduce corruption within religious establishments.
The dispute now places the government in a sensitive position, caught between calls for accountability within religious institutions and warnings that the state must not interfere with Buddhist doctrine or monastic independence.
As the debate intensifies, the central question remains whether Sri Lanka can reform religious governance without creating a constitutional clash between state power and sacred authority.
