A Powerful Monk, a Child Protection Case and a Media Freedom Test in Sri Lanka

In Sri Lanka, few institutions carry as much moral authority as the Buddhist clergy. For centuries, monks have shaped not only religious life but also the country’s politics, culture and national identity. But when powerful religious figures, such as a Buddhist prelate accused of serious offences including alleged rape, abusive conduct or actions perceived as undermining other religious communities, come under scrutiny, usually questions arise over whether the law would be applied equally. The pressure faced by media outlets reporting sensitive religious issues has also become a recurring concern, leaving aside the broader question of press freedom.

This debate has intensified following the case involving 73-year-old Pallegama Hemarathana Thera, one of Sri Lanka’s most influential Buddhist monks, who was arrested over allegations of sexually abusing a minor. The allegations became public on 9 May 2026, when police confirmed his arrest at a private hospital in Colombo after the National Child Protection Authority (NCPA) brought the matter before court. The monk is named as suspects in the investigation.

Hemarathana Thera is not an ordinary monk. He was the Atamasthanadhipathi, the chief custodian of Anuradhapura’s sacred Atamasthana—the eight most revered Buddhist sites in Sri Lanka, including the Jaya Sri Maha Bodhi and Ruwanwelisaya. He was also a senior figure linked to the Malwathu Chapter of the Siam Nikaya, one of the country’s most influential Buddhist establishments.

For millions of Sri Lankan Buddhists, the Atamasthana represents the spiritual heart of the country. The position carries immense religious prestige and public influence, making the allegations particularly shocking for many devotees.

According to information presented by child protection authorities and reported during the investigation, the alleged sexual abuse is said to have begun when the girl was around 11 years old and continued into her teenage years. Investigators examined claims that the child had been placed in a vulnerable position after being brought into the monk’s environment by her mother. However, the monk has denied the allegations, and the case remains before the courts.

The investigation included forensic procedures. On 12 June, a court ordered a DNA examination, with investigators seeking to compare forensic material collected during the inquiry with samples provided by the monk. Police later informed the Anuradhapura Magistrate’s Court that the first DNA report had been received, while another report was still awaited. Phone analysis reports relating to the monk, the alleged victim and the victim’s mother were also submitted to court. The monk was released on strict bail conditions, including a travel restriction and instructions not to contact the minor or her parents.

While this case became the centre of national attention, several other religious figures have faced arrests in unrelated criminal investigations. A 21-year-old Moulavi from Eragama was arrested over allegations involving the serious abuse of a 14-year-old girl. Several Buddhist monks have also faced arrests in separate cases, including alleged drug-related offences after returning from Thailand.

However, the case involving Hemarathana Thera created a unique public reaction because of his position within Sri Lanka’s religious hierarchy. Amid calls for accountability, he was removed from his administrative duties pending the outcome of the legal process, while another senior monk was appointed to ‘temporarily’ oversee the Atamasthana responsibilities.

The case also drew attention to the legal resources available to this monk. At one stage, nearly 30 lawyers appeared on behalf of the monk, while a team of around 20 lawyers, including senior legal figures, represented him during later proceedings. While every accused person has the right to legal representation, critics questioned the contrast between the extensive support available to an influential religious figure and the vulnerability of the minor at the centre of the case.

Religion and Political Power

Sri Lanka’s relationship between Buddhism and the state remains deeply intertwined. The Constitution gives Buddhism the foremost place, and successive governments have maintained close relationships with senior monks for political and social legitimacy. Even the National People’s Power (NPP), rooted in the Marxist Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), has had to operate within a political environment where Buddhist institutions remain highly influential. The question raised by critics is whether this political reality creates hesitation when powerful religious figures face allegations.

The controversy expanded after BBC Sinhala reported on concerns raised during a meeting of the Women Parliamentarians’ Caucus on 5 June 2026 regarding the handling of the investigation. The meeting was attended by Minister of Women and Child Affairs Saroja Savithri Paulraj, senior police officials, NCPA Chairperson retired High Court Judge Inoka Ranasinghe and other officials.

According to BBC Sinhala, citing sources, NPP MP Lakmal Hemachandra questioned NCPA officials over criticism made regarding police investigators during court proceedings. She reportedly raised concerns that such criticism could discourage investigators and argued that investigations should proceed based on evidence. The NCPA, however, maintained that its intervention was part of its legal responsibility to protect children and ensure effective investigations. The whole conversation between the NCPA and the women caucus was reported which angered the MP.

Shooting the Messenger

Following the BBC Sinhala report, the focus shifted from the substance of the allegations and institutional questions to the media organisation itself.

The BBC Sinhala service has now been summoned before Parliament’s Privileges Committee on 23 July 2026 to answer questions regarding its report. The development has raised concerns among press freedom advocates about the challenges faced by journalists reporting on powerful institutions.

The central issue highlighted by BBC Sinhala was not guilt or innocence – that remains a matter for the courts to determine – but whether institutions responsible for child protection and law enforcement are being questioned fairly and transparently in their handling of a case involving a vulnerable child. Religious practices are personal, and when matters of faith are applied selectively for convenience or to shield individuals from accountability, it does not invoke blessings.
_____________________________________
The writer is an award-winning journalist and the Deputy Editor of Ceylon Today, Colombo