Sri Lanka’s Constitution authorises the state to limit certain fundamental freedoms on the grounds of specific public interests. This article examines how this constitutional limitation regime has become vulnerable to majoritarian influence. It uses a case study approach, supplemented by key informant interviews, to delve into Sri Lanka’s constitutional practice with respect to limitations on fundamental freedoms such as the freedom of religion or belief, and the freedom of expression. The article illustrates how organs of the Sri Lankan state have equated notions of ‘public interest’ with the majority community’s conceptions of ‘security’, ‘order’, ‘health’ and ‘morals’. It argues that this practice reflects a cleavage between the moral legitimacy and the legal claimability of fundamental freedoms of minorities and satirists in Sri Lanka. It concludes that legal regimes designed to guarantee fundamental freedoms offer very little protection to minorities when the underlying politics driving the application of law is majoritarian.

斯里兰卡宪法授权国家基于特定公共利益限制某些基本自由。本文探讨了这种宪法限制制度如何变得容易受到多数主义的影响。它采用案例研究的方法，并辅以关键知情人访谈，深入研究斯里兰卡在限制宗教或信仰自由以及言论自由等基本自由方面的宪法实践。文章阐述了斯里兰卡国家机关如何将“公共利益”的概念与大多数社区的“安全”、“秩序”、“健康”和“道德”概念等同起来。它认为，这种做法反映了斯里兰卡少数群体和讽刺作家的基本自由的道德合法性与法律主张之间的分歧。