Senaka Weeraratna

Observations

Modern legislation to govern Animal Welfare in Sri Lanka is a sine qua non. A Civilizational imperative. It can no longer be sidelined as has been practiced in the past on the ground that matters addressing human needs must always have priority over animal needs. Unfortunately, this was the experience of the well-planned and well-drafted Animal Welfare Bill released by the Law Commission in 2006. It was the most comprehensive document prepared over a period of six years (2000 – 2006) after an extensive study and examination of laws of other Jurisdictions, during the drafting stage with Animal Welfare as its only focus. It became a political football soon after its release.

Interference by various people representing vested interests exploiting animals, changing/adding/deleting key Clauses over the years to primarily provide trade benefits over and above the welfare of the animals led to the backslide of the Animal Welfare Bill.

While the attempt to enact a New Animal Welfare Bill to replace the archaic and obsolete legislation i.e., the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance, No. 13 of 1907 is indeed commendable, the failure to incorporate an up-to-date legal framework containing modern standards particularly on conditions surrounding slaughter up to the final moments of a live animal, would continue to slur Sri Lanka’s international image.

The new AW Bill retains the applicability of the 1893 Butcher’s Ordinance with all its obnoxious and medieval methods of slaughter without consideration of bringing any improvement to the welfare of the animals at the time of passage in the slaughterhouse and time of slaughter. This is totally unacceptable. Slaughter of an animal must be subject to strict regulation in line with modern standards found in, for example, Spain, Germany and Belgium, and in line with the main object of the AWB – Clause 2a

a)     foster kindness, compassion, and responsible behavior towards animals and secure the protection, welfare and wellbeing of animals

Furthermore, the new Bill (2026) contains significant contradictions and ambiguities that will render most acts of cruelty to animals not legally definable and will obstruct State and public rescue operations to save threatened animals or animals in danger difficult.

4.     Clause 19 is the ugly duckling of the entire Animal Welfare Bill (2026). It is tantamount to a blatant negation of the right to protection for all animals that is usually at the heart of credible Animal Welfare legislation in any part of the world.  In the 2026 version, the AWB guarantees at the commencement of the legislation the right to protection of all animals but with a sleight of hand excludes certain species of animals totally, including both quadrupeds and bipeds, which are of economic value from such protection. Even an iota of protection from legislation. No country in the world has such draconian draft legislation directed towards some categories of animals, defined as food animals, who are making the supreme sacrifice of their dear lives for the benefit of humans without even a modicum of expression of gratitude from the human consumers of their flesh. This is a reversal of morality that Sri Lanka once took pride in and led to people of neighboring countries calling the Sinhalese ‘Aryavamsa’, (which means Noble Race”). Ancient rulers made animal protection and welfare part of the law and public administration. The Buddhist principles of metta (loving-kindness) and karuna (compassion) shaped daily life. People avoided harming living creatures, setting a high moral standard admired by others even in neighbouring countries. This high moral standing and unique identity of the ancient Sinhalese was deeply rooted in several historical practices:

Deep Roots of Animal Welfare in ancient Sri Lanka

• Buddhist Influence: Following the arrival of Buddhism in the 3rd century BCE, the concepts of metta (loving-kindness) and karuna (compassion) became central to state administration. [1]
• Royal Decrees: Ancient Sinhalese kings frequently issued Maghata decrees (royal orders banning the killing of any living beings) across the island. [1, 2, 3]
• Animal Sanctuaries: Rulers established the world’s earliest wildlife sanctuaries and dedicated animal hospitals to treat sick or injured wildlife and domestic beasts. [1, 2, 3]
• Ahimsa Ideals: The societal adherence to Ahimsa (non-violence) and a historical distance from commercial animal slaughter drew widespread admiration across South Asia. [1, 2]

5.     Clause 19 with sub-clauses (a-i) with trade benefits and profits in mind for business houses, allows selected Animals despite being ‘sentient beings’ to be treated as inanimate objects or chattels contradicting the Act’s own definition of Animal” and subverting its own Objects. This is unconscionable and immoral as, for example, Chicken is excluded from the welfare provisions of the Draft Act.

6.     Clause 19 prohibits farm animals (19(c) and live animals that are being used in experiments and teaching (19(e)from gaining the protection of this Act and has extended the exemption from gaining protection of the Act to Poultry (19(d) purely for trade and economic benefits. The welfare of the animal is being sacrificed in the altar of profit and in the rush to accommodate the meat trade in these provisions. All this defeats the primary purpose of this Act, as Poultry (fowls, hens) are also ‘sentient beings’ (animals), and their welfare is entitled to protection under the draft Act. 

7.     Clauses 1-18 mostly deal with the refinement of the language used in the provisions and the increase in the quantum of fines and jail terms.

8.     Clause 19 (e) says that the draft Act does not apply to the use of animals for testing of drugs or cosmetics in accordance with the prescribed procedure”. This provision is morally indefensible and glaringly contradictory to another identically worded provision. In one provision of the Act (Clause 13) the use of live animals is prohibited, adding a rider qualifier that was not there in the 2006 version – unless it is for prescribed purposes.” and in this Clause, it is allowed without any prohibition or qualifier. In fact, this Act will not protect these live animals. These two provisions, Clause 13 and Clause 19(e) mutually contradict each other and if kept as they are in this manner, they will bring the 2026 Act to ridicule and disrepute. Chapter III which deals exclusively with ‘Use of live animals for Experimental and Teaching Purposes’ is rendered redundant as Clause 18 (e) prohibits the application of the draft Act to use of animals for testing of drugs or cosmetics in accordance with the prescribed procedure”. These blatant contradictions make a mockery of the Draft Act. Clause 47 which deals with the subject of Regulation repeats in Clause 47 (2) (o) the same subject that is dealt with in Clause 19 (this subject which will be redundant by virtue of Clause 19 (e).

9.     The word ‘Pests’ in Clause 45, raises new animal welfare concerns. ‘Pests’ back in the 2006 Bill were meant to be interpreted as ‘insects’ but never as bipeds or quadrupeds. The looming danger is that the term ‘Pests’ may provide a loophole for stretching the interpretation to include a whole range of other animals e.g., wild animals, stray cats, and dogs. This is alarming.

10. Part II – Clause 30(1) There is provision for establishment of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee in place of a National Animal Welfare Authority as proposed in the 2006 Bill is another drawback. Drafting of legislation must be strict and not leave room for favourites of the framers of the legislation to creep in through the backdoor via an extended interpretation of a provision drafted for such purpose. Clause 30 (1) (b) (i) is one such provision. In other provisions, suitable people involved in a particular field are acceptable for nomination to this Committee. In this sub-clause, the language used is ‘actively engaged in animal welfare’. This is an insult to all veterinarians as they are all engaged in the rendering of services to animals. The Act’s own interpretation of Animal Welfare Officer” means all Government Veterinary Surgeons.

11.  Animal Welfare Advisory Committee — (Part II) Clause 30 of the AWB (2026) is an extended and lengthy provision devoted exclusively to the subject matter of the ‘Establishment of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee’ and related aspects.

It is when one looks closely at the composition of the Advisory Committee and the basis of its duties in an Advisory capacity to the Minister that the sinister Agenda underlying the AWB (2026) is laid bare.

Using a hackneyed idiom, the framers have ‘let the cat out of the bag’ in composing Clause 30. Its unbalanced nature, one-sidedness, and bias in favour of vested interests that unabashedly exploit animals in the food industry, pharmaceutical and cosmetics industries, and laboratory sciences, are abundantly made clear. In comparison to the content of the 2006 version of AWB relating to the composition of the Authority and its functions (Part II) (Clause 3 -13), the 2026 version has downsized and circumscribed the work of the Advisory Committee.

In a glaring display of partisanship, there is room provided in the Advisory Committee to be packed with members representing the ‘users of animals for consumption and trade’ rather than the ‘carers’ and ‘voices’ for animals. The 2006 version allowed six members nominated by Animal Welfare Societies to be on the Committee of the Authority. This number has been reduced to five members on the Advisory Committee in the 2026 version.

In the 2006 version the functions of the Authority in favour of the uplift of the cause of animals extended to 24 items in number (Part III – Clause 14 (a) – 14 (u)). These 24 lines of pursuit as set out were ennobling and dignified reflecting the historical and civilizational character of Sri Lanka. Unfortunately, this high-minded endeavour has been thwarted and the number of advisory functions has been reduced to seven in the 2026 version while one function (within these seven ) is to advise the Minister ‘on any matter relating to laboratory facilities for experiments on animals.’ There was no such function allocated to the Authority in the 2006 version.

12. Clause 3 – Appointment of the Director – General of Animal Production and Health (appointed under Section 2 of the Animal Diseases Act, No. 59 of 1992) to be in charge of the general administration of the Animal Welfare Act

Assigning the Director-General of the Department of Animal Production and Health to administer Sri Lanka’s Animal Welfare Bill creates a structural conflict of interest, as the Department’s primary mandate centers on livestock promotion and the agricultural industry rather than independent animal protection.

This provision in the Act pits economic and industrial targets against humane animal protections.

The Core Conflict of Interest

• Production vs. Protection: The DAPH is legally and operationally mandated to maximize livestock yields, commercial efficiency, and the economic performance of the meat, dairy, and poultry industries. Tasking the same agency with enforcing strict anti-cruelty standards is viewed as asking the industry to police itself. [1, 2, 3, 4]
• Exclusion of Commercial Cruelty: Critics highlight that because of intensive industry lobbying, the 2026 Bill omits sweeping oversight of daily slaughter house operations. Having a production-focused department at the helm ensures commercial slaughterhouse conditions remain largely unscrutinized under the guise of regular industrial operations. [1]
• Jurisdictional Mismatch: While the Director-General’s expertise lies strictly in food-producing farm animals, the Animal Welfare Bill covers domestic pets, stray animals, wildlife, and exotic species—areas where the DAPH lacks mandate and expertise. [1, 2, 3]

The Conflict of Interest

• Mandate Mismatch: The Department of Animal Production and Health focuses on livestock economics, farming output, and the meat industry, which can directly clash with ethical welfare enforcement.
• Broad Jurisdiction: The bill covers pets, stray animals, and wildlife, yet puts a livestock-oriented agricultural officer in overall charge.
• Diluted Protection: There is a huge possibility that commercial and agricultural interests may override strict anti-cruelty enforcement for farm and production animals and dilute the protection afforded to such animals by the Act.

Idiom

“It is like the fox guarding the henhouse” or “setting a wolf to watch the sheep” These idioms refer to giving a dishonest or dangerous person the power to exploit the very things they are supposed to protect. This is a bad provision in the Animal Welfare Bill with an obvious conflict of interest.

The Conflict Issues

• Mandate Clash: The Department of Animal Production and Health supports livestock industries. Animal welfare groups protect animals from harm.
• Broad Scope: The law covers pets, wildlife, and farm animals. A livestock-centered boss may ignore farm or slaughterhouse cruelty.
• Weak Enforcement: Commercial interests will overrule basic welfare needs.

Solution

An independent entity that has no vested interest in the production of livestock and commercial exploitation of animals should be in charge of the administration of the Animal Welfare Act.

The Protection of the Animal is the paramount aim of the Act. It is so in all civilized countries.

Revive Ayurveda Treatment of Animals

Traditional Ayurveda treatment of animals in Sri Lanka, historically known as Pasu Ayurveda or Gava Ayurveda, is an ancient veterinary practice that predates modern Western medicine by centuries. Rooted in the island’s indigenous Hela Wedakama and Indian Ayurvedic traditions, this holistic system focuses on balancing the animal’s bodily humors using entirely natural resources. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Historical Milestones

• Royal Patronage: Sri Lankan kings were highly involved in animal care. Ancient chronicles like the Mahavamsa record King Dutugemunu (161–137 BC) ordering physicians to treat his royal war elephant, Kadol Etha (Kandula), for severe burns suffered during battle. [1, 2, 3, 4]
• The Healer King: King Buddhadasa (AD 340–368), a renowned royal physician, famously performed a surgical procedure on an injured snake, showcasing the extreme breadth of ancient wildlife care. [1]
• Ancient Records: Extensive knowledge of animal treatments remains preserved on ola leaf manuscripts (palm-leaf documents) stored at the National Museum and the Ayurvedic Research Institute in Maharagama. [1, 2]

Key Animal Groups Treated

• Elephants (Ali Wedakama): Given the cultural and religious importance of elephants in Sri Lanka, a specialized branch of native medicine exists solely to treat their physical ailments, foot rot, and behavioral issues. [1, 2, 3, 4]
• Cattle (Gava Wedakama): Traditional farming communities historically relied on local practitioners to cure livestock of digestive issues, wounds, and fractures using herbal remedies. [1, 2]
• Pets and Domestic Wildlife: Domesticated dogs, cats, and birds are frequently administered gentle herbal decoctions for common infections and physical trauma.

Common Treatment Methods

• Oral Medications: Administering herbal pastes (kalka), decoctions (kasaya), and powders mixed with organic carriers like honey or coconut milk.
• Inhalation Therapy: Forcing animals to inhale medicinal fumes generated by burning specific herbs to clear respiratory blockages.
• Symbolic Branding: Utilizing specialized branding patterns on skin areas to stimulate specific marma (pressure) points, historically used for cattle and elephants.
• Fracture Healing (Kedum Bidum): Applying herbal pastes wrapped in leaves and bamboo splints to reset broken bones in livestock, dogs, and cats. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Current Status and Practitioners

Today, it is estimated that around 2,000 traditional veterinary practitioners exist throughout Sri Lanka. Most practice on a part-time basis within rural farming villages, passing down secret family recipes orally or through handwritten journals. [1]

The state recognizes this heritage legally. For example, the draft Animal Welfare Bill of Sri Lanka explicitly mandates that national animal welfare advisory councils must include a registered Ayurvedic physician with experience in treating animals. [1, 2, 3]

https://share.google/aimode/3dxPp0xKb3KCcp9tk

---

Concluding Remarks: 

The entire Animal Welfare Bill proposed by the Law Commission in 2006 has been hijacked by the Meat trade and its acolytes and converted into an AWB (2026) protecting not the innocent animals but more the interests of the Poultry and Meat trade, and those who use live Animals in totally unnecessary experiments despite the availability of viable non-violent and harmless alternatives.

Any Animal Welfare Bill that deliberately overlooks the appalling and inhumane slaughter conditions in Sri Lanka without addressing them like in developed countries e.g. Spain, Germany, UK, is a sham.

People who want to ban Elephants in Perahera must also address the issue of Animal Sacrifice on religious grounds. No person has a Constitutional right to deprive a defenseless animal of its precious life for the purpose of appeasement of God(s). It is cruel and barbaric to do so. That is a challenge that AWB must accept. This must be made part of modern humane education (covering all living beings – ‘Siyalu Sathwayo’) beginning from the kindergarten in schools.

It is a shame to see that the Veterinary Council of Sri Lanka appears to be using their power and influence to dislodge the Ayurveda practitioners who have served animals in this country for more than 2000 years from the field of Animal care. No monopoly for Western educated Vets.   ‘Ayurveda Veda Mahattayas’ are true friends of Animals. Their voice must be heard in the corridors of power of the Vet Industry and on the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee.

Can the friends of voiceless animals remain silent in the face of enactment of a bad piece of draft legislation that overlooks the suffering of animals on the way to slaughter without food, water and care, to be called the ‘Animal Welfare Act’ upon enactment?

NO

Senaka Weeraratna

Director

Justice for Animals and Nature

Former Legal Consultant on Animal Welfare Legislation to the Law Commission of Sri Lanka (2000 – 2006)

August 05, 2026