A fierce debate has erupted in Sri Lanka’s Parliament over a draft bill amending the Penal Code to address the corporal punishment of children. Presented by Minister of Women and Child Affairs Saroja Savithri Paulraj on September 24, the amendment aims to prohibit physical and mental violence against minors. Yet the proposed legislation has ignited widespread opposition from educators, religious leaders, and legal experts who argue that its vague language could criminalize reasonable discipline while failing to address the nation’s most pressing child protection crises.
The Proposed Amendment
The new Section 308A Bill for the amendment states:
“Whoever, having the custody, charge, or care of any person under eighteen years of age, commits
(a) as a measure of punishment or correctional method, an act for which physical force is used, with knowledge that such act is likely to cause some degree of pain or discomfort, however light; or
(b) a non-physical act with knowledge that it is likely to cause humiliation, however light, commits the offence of corporal punishment.”
Violations carry up to six months’ imprisonment, fines of up to 100,000 rupees, or both. Minister Paulraj cites over 2,000 annual complaints of child cruelty since 2013, including degrading practices such as forcibly cutting hair, loosening uniform hems, and applying shoe polish to students’ heads. She contends that corporal punishment breeds violence, theft, aggression, and anti-social behavior in children.
The Legal Flaw: Dangerous Ambiguity
The amendment’s fundamental weakness lies in the phrase “some degree of” pain, discomfort, or humiliation. As MP Ajith P. Perera emphasizes, this language establishes no clear legal thresholds. Who determines what constitutes “some degree” of discomfort or humiliation?
Perera stresses the need for precise interpretation of terms such as “humiliation” and advocates the inclusion of “good faith” provisions to protect teachers and parents who take disciplinary measures with genuine intent. Without such clarity, the law risks penalizing proportionate, necessary discipline rather than preventing actual abuse.
Mounting Opposition
Teachers’ associations, principals’ unions, education professionals, and the Maha Nayaka Theros have voiced serious concerns about the amendment’s vague provisions. The Maha Nayaka Theros warned President Anura Kumara Dissanayake that this legislation could destroy mutual relationships and understanding between parents and children, as well as teachers and students.
Priyantha Fernando, Chairman of the Ceylon Teachers’ Union, warns that fear of arrest under this ambiguous law may compel teachers to abandon disciplinary measures entirely. Recent incidents validate this concern, including a student assaulting a Monaragala teacher over a mobile phone, highlighting the daily erosion of authority in schools.
The Real Crises Being Ignored
While Parliament debates subjective definitions of “light discomfort,” documented crises demand urgent attention. Data from the Women and Children’s Bureau of Police reveals that 1,344 girls were raped in just the first seven months of 2025. Over 15,000 young women aged 15–19 become pregnant annually, and UNICEF reports that 11% of women aged 20–24 were married before 18, resulting in interrupted education, family violence, and mental health issues.
Drug traffickers actively target children, particularly boys, forcing teachers to manage substance abuse within schools while public mechanisms such as remand, probation, and military rehabilitation prove ineffective. Minister Paulraj herself acknowledged that children of mothers working in the Middle East face heightened vulnerability under alternative guardianship.
Teachers already contend with mobile phone addiction, pornography distribution, inadequate state education, crippling tuition costs, and unsafe commutes. While developed nations like Finland successfully raise children without corporal punishment, creating well-adjusted citizens with higher educational engagement, Sri Lanka’s legislation must account for current ground realities.
The Path Forward
Effective child protection legislation requires removing ambiguous language, establishing clear thresholds that distinguish abuse from legitimate discipline, and prioritizing the prosecution of actual torture and systemic violence. Without precision, this law risks becoming an ineffective instrument, one that undermines authority while failing to protect children from genuine threats.
Sri Lanka needs legislation that safeguards children from real harm without handcuffing those responsible for their guidance. The current draft, despite noble intentions, risks achieving neither goal.