The police must tell you the reason for any arrest, under Article 13 of the Constitution. They may search you only where the law allows, such as on arrest or under a warrant. You must answer questions truthfully unless the answer would incriminate you.
Most people's contact with the police is brief and uneventful, but it can be unsettling, especially when it is not clear what the officer is entitled to do. A basic understanding of police powers, and of your own rights, makes these encounters easier to handle.
Police powers have legal limits
The starting point is that police powers in Sri Lanka are defined by law, mainly the Code of Criminal Procedure Act No. 15 of 1979, and are limited by the Constitution. The police cannot simply do as they please. Their powers to stop, question, search and arrest all have legal boundaries, and stepping outside those boundaries can make an arrest or a search unlawful.
Being told why you are arrested
On arrest, the clearest protection comes from Article 13 of the Constitution, which requires that a person who is arrested be informed of the reason for the arrest. An officer who takes someone into custody has to be able to point to a lawful basis for doing so. For many offences the police need a warrant issued by a court, while for the more serious category of cognizable offences they may arrest without one.
Search powers
Search powers are connected to this. The police may search a person in defined circumstances, such as on a lawful arrest or under a search warrant, and there are specific powers in various statutes, including drug legislation, that allow searches in particular situations. If a search is unlawful, that can become relevant later to how the resulting evidence is treated by a court.
Questioning and self-incrimination
Questioning is where people most often feel unsure. Sri Lankan law here differs from what many people assume from foreign television: there is no general right to stay silent. Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act No. 15 of 1979 lets an investigating officer examine anyone thought to know something about the case, and it goes on to say that the person is bound to answer truly, with one important exception: they are not bound to answer questions that would tend to expose them to a criminal charge, penalty or forfeiture. That protection against self-incrimination is the shield, not a blanket entitlement to say nothing. The courts also approach statements made to the police with caution because of the risk that they were not truly voluntary. Because the line between an ordinary question and an incriminating one is rarely obvious in the moment, it is usually sensible to speak to a lawyer before giving a detailed statement.
None of this means resisting the police is wise. Physically resisting or obstructing an officer can itself be an offence and will almost always make matters worse. The better approach is to stay calm, comply with lawful instructions, make clear that you wish to contact a lawyer or a family member, and remember as much detail as you can about what happened, including names, times and places.
If your rights are violated
If the police do overstep, the law provides remedies after the fact, including a fundamental rights application to the Supreme Court under Article 126 of the Constitution where a person's rights have been violated by executive or administrative action. The timing matters more than most people realise: Article 126(2) requires the application to be made within one month of the alleged infringement. That period is short, and it is one of the most common reasons a genuine complaint cannot be pursued. Those remedies also work best when there is a clear record of what occurred, which is another reason to note names, times and details carefully at the time.
