The proposed Chartered Institute of Media Professionals of Sri Lanka represents one of the most significant attempts in recent years to formalize and regulate the media profession through legislation. Presented as a mechanism to improve professional standards, education, training, and ethical conduct in journalism and media practice, the Bill has generated debate over whether it strengthens professionalism or creates new avenues for state influence over the media.
At first glance, the Bill appears similar to professional bodies established for lawyers, accountants, engineers, and medical practitioners. The Institute is tasked with maintaining professional standards, accrediting media professionals, conducting examinations, providing training, and enforcing disciplinary standards. These are legitimate objectives that could contribute to improving journalistic quality and public trust in the media. The Bill recognizes media professionals as a profession deserving institutional recognition and professional development.
However, unlike medicine or law, journalism occupies a unique constitutional position because it is closely linked to freedom of expression and democratic accountability. Any statutory mechanism that regulates journalists therefore requires particularly strong safeguards against political interference.
One of the most significant concerns relates to the role of the Minister. Although the Institute is established as a corporate body with legal independence, the Minister retains substantial influence over its formation and operation. The Minister appoints the Interim Council, while the Secretary to the relevant Ministry automatically serves on that body. The Interim Council is empowered to determine the criteria for membership and oversee the establishment of the permanent governing structure. This means that the initial architecture of the institution is shaped directly by the executive branch of government.
The Bill further authorizes the Institute to advise the Minister on media education and media professionalism. While advisory relationships between professional bodies and governments are common, the close institutional relationship between the Institute and the Minister raises concerns about whether the organization will operate independently or become closely aligned with government policy priorities.
A second concern involves accreditation. The Institute’s objectives include accrediting media professionals and enrolling qualified members. While the Bill does not explicitly require journalists to become members in order to practice journalism, it establishes a statutory mechanism for determining professional recognition within the industry.
This distinction is crucial. International freedom of expression standards generally oppose systems that require government approval, licensing, or official certification before a person can engage in journalism. Journalism is considered a right linked to freedom of expression rather than a state-granted privilege. If membership in the Institute were to become a practical requirement for employment, accreditation, access to events, or professional recognition, the Institute could evolve into a gatekeeping mechanism that affects who may function effectively as a journalist.
The Bill also grants disciplinary powers over members. A Disciplinary Committee may investigate allegations of professional misconduct and recommend sanctions, including warnings, suspension, or removal from membership. Importantly, the definition of “professional misconduct” is not contained in the legislation itself but is left to rules created by the Council.
This raises significant concerns regarding legal certainty. Broad or vague definitions of misconduct could potentially be used to penalize controversial reporting, investigative journalism, or criticism of public officials. While professional accountability is necessary, disciplinary frameworks affecting journalists must be carefully designed to avoid chilling legitimate reporting and commentary.
Another area of concern is the extensive role given to regulations and rules. The Minister is empowered to make regulations under the Act, while the Council can make rules governing membership qualifications, enrolment, disenrolment, fees, courses, and other operational matters. These provisions leave many important details to be determined after the Act becomes law.
As a result, the practical impact of the Institute will depend not only on the Act itself but also on future regulations and rules. Critics may argue that powers affecting media professionals should be clearly defined in primary legislation rather than delegated to future rule-making processes.
The definition of “media professionals” within the Bill is also remarkably broad. It includes journalists, editors, publishers, media owners, researchers, educators, technicians, broadcasters, presenters, and content developers. Such a broad definition extends the Institute’s potential influence far beyond traditional journalism and into almost every aspect of the media sector.
Supporters of the Bill argue that these concerns should be balanced against genuine problems within the media industry, including unethical reporting, misinformation, inadequate professional training, and the absence of recognized standards. They contend that a professional body could improve educational standards, promote ethical conduct, facilitate research, and enhance public trust in journalism.
Nevertheless, the central question is not whether professional standards should exist, but who should define and enforce them. International best practices generally favor independent self-regulation rather than state-led regulation of journalism. In many democratic societies, press councils, journalist associations, and professional bodies operate independently of government control, with membership remaining voluntary and editorial freedom protected.
The Bill therefore sits at the intersection of two legitimate objectives: improving professional standards and protecting media freedom. Whether it ultimately strengthens journalism or weakens media independence will depend on how its powers are implemented, how membership is treated in practice, how professional misconduct is defined, and whether future governments respect the institutional independence of the Institute.
The success of the Institute should ultimately be measured not by its ability to regulate journalists, but by its ability to enhance professionalism without compromising the independence that is essential to a free and democratic media.
It could be argued that the most controversial provisions are not the Minister’s regulation-making powers themselves, but the combination of (1) state-created accreditation, (2) disciplinary powers over journalists, and (3) the absence of an explicit guarantee that membership will never be required to practice journalism. Those are the areas that deserve the scrutiny from international press freedom organizations.
The Gazzatte: 40-2026_E