By Pavani Premarathne | Times of Lanka
With all the news we are seeing, one thing is becoming clearer by the day, that society is no longer a safe space for anyone. Either be human or animal the cruelty and abuse imposed on living beings are growing rapidly. The difference between humans and animals make these concerns much worse as animals are really without a voice unlike us humans. One prominent step in safeguarding the rights of these voiceless has been discussed for decades in Sri Lanka and that is the Animal Welfare Bill on which we are keeping faith to solve some of the issues regarding animal rights in a more systematic way. But, unfortunately the Bill has been making circles for years now and the recently gazetted Animal Welfare Draft Bill – 48/2026 seems to be with several crucial loopholes which would contradict the purpose of it to serve animal welfare.
To get a deeper look into this matter, we at Times of Lanka, reached out to Animal Welfare activist Champa Fernando, Executive Committee member of Animal Welfare Coalition (AWC), who was involved with the bill from its beginning, to get to know about the present status of the bill.
Production or protection
As Fernando explained, the 2026 Animal Welfare Draft Bill is heavily weighted towards securing agricultural and economic benefits from the use of animals, while failing to legally subject such practices to cruelty offences. Thus, it effectively denies certain animals the legal right to protection from abuse and cruelty under the Act and the Production vs. Protection, the theme visible throughout the 48/2026 draft bill raises a clear conflict of interest. She elaborated on this conflict of interest by drawing a lot of contradictory or conflicting clauses which are sometimes loosely or broadly worded, with ambiguous and unclear words compelling to deal with a dual-legal framework calling for a lot of fresh abuse.
A fox guarding the henhouse?
The smooth running of a Bill will only happen if it is under a strong administration, but as Fernando points out, the Bill has issues starting from that very point. Clause 3, lines 15-18 under the short title as ‘Administration of the Act’ demands that the Director General of the Animal Production and Health (DG-DAPH) appointed under Section 2 of Animal Diseases Act No. 59 of 1992 be in charge of the general administration of the Act. But ironically DAPH is tasked with boosting commercial meat and dairy production, which often inherently conflicts with enforcing strict animal cruelty and rights laws. Also, it is undeniable that DAPH largely prioritises on disease control and livestock breeding for farm productivity whereas the draft Animal Welfare Bill also should cover stray dogs, companion pets, wild animals, exotic animals, and working animals such as elephants etc. Accordingly, it is clear that this requires a dedicated independent authority with a welfare first mandate rather than an agriculture first mandate. This makes DG-DAPH a poor fit to administer the Animal Welfare Bill and the administrative structure is fundamentally irrational, arbitrary and violates public trust.
Moreover, DG-DAPH is an ex-officio member of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee on a par with 10 other members as per PART II Establishment of the Animal Welfare Committee in pages 15-17, Clause 30. This irrational placement which gives a primary role to the DG-DAPH by arbitrarily placing him/her in charge of the Administration of the Act which renders the expertise of other members in the Advisory Committee to a secondary level, cannot be justified. Placing enforcement solely within an agricultural government department in this manner lacks the impartiality of a centralised animal protection committee.
Sudden insertions to cover certain parties’ needs?
Fernando also mentioned some points which have been newly added and which are problematic. Moving to Clause 48, lines 13-14, the definition of animal welfare officer is stated as any government veterinary surgeon. The government veterinary surgeons are mandated by the DAPH and are tasked with boosting commercial meat and dairy production in line with its core mandate of promotion of the livestock industry creating a direct conflict of interest with animal protection. This definition automatically exempts wildlife veterinary surgeons, Zoological Department’s vets, and other veterinary surgeons who are also under one oath and are registered under the Veterinary Surgeons and Practitioners Act No. 46 of 1956 involved with domesticated pet animals, which animals are also legally protected by this act. Thus, as Fernando emphasised the word appropriated and inclusive would be not government veterinary surgeon but any registered veterinary surgeon.
Another example for these conflicting ideas are evident in clause 15 lines 25-26 which proposes “Provided that, a prescribed food animal may be offered for sale on approval of a Government Veterinary Surgeon” which was not in the 2022 draft bill. Its insertion here indicates the focused desire to cover the livestock industry needs.
So with this Production vs Protection theme throughout the bill shows the obvious desire and attempt to give weight to an Agricultural and Economic Benefit-First Mandate over an Animal Protection-First Mandate which gives us enough and more reasons to challenge its credibility serving animal welfare.
There is still much more to uncover, and this conversation does not end here about the recently gazetted Animal Welfare Draft Bill – 48/2026.
Does the Animal Welfare Bill Really Stop the Perahera or Animal Husbandry?
Now let’s delve into more details about the present complications and look at how we can move forward. In recent news, we have heard so many voices rallying against the Bill, saying that it is a step by the government to stop the “Sri Dalada Maligawa Perahera”. At the same time, parties involved in animal husbandry have accused the bill of interfering with their industry.
But if you look closely at the Bill, it doesn’t stop most of the opportunities for abuse and cruelty and does not do what it is accused of. This is where the discussion needs to go beyond the headlines and the arguments being made from either side. If the intention is truly to improve animal welfare, we need to look closely at what the Bill actually addresses, what it leaves out, and whether it really provides the protection that animals need. This will be the conversation we at Lotus Media will be continuing with Animal Welfare activist Champa Fernando, Executive Committee member of Animal Welfare Coalition (AWC), who has been closely following and examining the Bill from the very beginning.
Are all the responsible parties involved?
As Fernando pointed out, the Bill urgently needs to consider whether all the relevant parties have been properly represented. In Part II subtitled “Establishment of the Animal Advisory Committee” Clause 30 (1) (b) (i-vi), the members appointed by the Minister should be “a veterinary surgeon actively engaged in animal welfare nominated by the Secretary, Ministry of the Minister assigned the subject of Livestock Development”, “three academics involved in animal experimentation in the fields of Animal Science, Zoology, and Aquatic Science, respectively nominated by University Grants Commission established by University Act, No.16 of 1978”, “one person from registered animal associations dealing with laboratory animal science nominated by such association”, “five persons from registered animal welfare organizations”, “two persons representing poultry and livestock industries; and One Ayurveda practitioner registered with the Ayurvedic Medical Council established under Ayurveda”. Although some specifications have been made, this selection remains a matter of debate, where Fernando points out the significance of including amendments to ensure representation for all animal categories, so that some animal categories are not left out or neglected when advice is given to the Minister under Part II.
What’s the point of redundancy?
As in page 5 Clause 13 lines 15-17 “A person shall not use an animal to test cosmetics, cosmetic ingredients or cosmetic products unless it is for prescribed purposes”. However, the absence of an outright ban on the use of animals to test cosmetics, cosmetic ingredients, or cosmetic products raises serious concerns when it is also a violation of the Sri Lankan Constitution by permitting unethical industry practices. According to Fernando, this could amount to permitting unethical industry practices when alternatives are already available. In recent times it has been clear that cosmetic testing is obsolete and we already see several local brands championing the modern non-animal alternatives like human skin tissue models and volunteer panels. Internationally also this has been the case where over 45 countries have already prohibited this practice, including India, the UK, the EU, and South Korea. Thus, legalising or allowing it in Sri Lanka “for prescribed purposes” which is again ambiguous would make the island a dumping ground for unethical products.
Cosmetic Verbose
“As Chapter I Clauses do not apply to Clause 19, Clauses 4-18 of Chapter I are made into mere cosmetic verbose”. Fernando stated. As stated on page 7, Clause 19 (a-d) lines 4-22, and Page 8 (g-h) lines 3-8, the provisions of this chapter, “shall not apply to the dehorning of cattle or buffaloes, sheep or goat, castration, branding, fixing identity numbers, or nose-roping of an animal, or restricting movements of elephants in public places, or any other prescribed managed practices performed by a Veterinary Surgeon or a person qualified to do such practices” etc and also “the using, training or supplying of an animal by an owner or the person in charge of that animal for any agricultural, religious, recreational or cultural activity without any harm being caused to such animal”. Accordingly, using animals for perahara or recreation or any religious, cultural activity seems not to be affected by the Bill’s content.
Another crucially debated Clause which can lead to much controversy is Clause 19 (i) which states that “the control and management of wild animals and reasonable measures taken to safeguarding human life, animal life, or property including crops by prescribed officers under the Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance (Chapter 469)”. Fernando emphasised on the ambiguity of the phrasing. “But what are reasonable measures? If you say reasonable it can be defined in so many different ways. We see this as a draconian move” she stated. “Also, on top of that, we came across this circular sent to all the agriculture directors of the country to compile a list of species who are overpopulated district-wise and who are harming the crops. But the problem is, are these agricultural directors trained to do a list like this taking into consideration all the ideas of ecological balance and wild animal behaviours of the country?” Fernando expanded.
Accordingly, the exemption established by Clause 19 (i) could potentially legitimise harmful wildlife management practices. Removing key animals can break the natural balance of forests and rivers. Creating blanket exemptions for individuals to “control and manage” these animals without oversight introduces a dangerous duality in the law, essentially allowing the killing of protected species without standard, objective legal parameters.
Moving ahead
As Fernando proposes, the Animal Welfare Bill should be placed under the Ministry of Justice so that its first mandate is not re-subjected to, or clouded by, the policies, aims and targets of a particular ministry or industry.
Furthermore, to avoid repeating the same mistakes and delays that have kept this vital legislation in circles for years, all relevant stakeholders should be brought together by policymakers to carefully review and amend the Bill.
The objective should not be to create legislation that ignores industries or practices that use animals for economic and other purposes. Rather, the challenge is to create a law that can accommodate these realities without allowing animal welfare to become secondary to them.
Sri Lanka has been discussing this Bill for far too long. What is needed now is not another round of circles, but a clear direction towards a law that genuinely gives a voice and meaningful protection to those who have none.