Real hangover: Outdated laws and who they serve

GROWING up in Sri Lanka we're often reminded of the country's proud legacy of progress for women: setting a global precedent in 1960 as the first country in the world to elect a female Prime Minister.

- By Randhula de Silva

Today, women in Sri Lanka enjoy one of the highest literacy rates in South Asia, at over 90%. Women also make up the majority in universities and represent a significant portion of the workforce, especially in manufacturing and service sectors. Despite these political and economic milestones, Sri Lanka was one of the few countries in the world to restrict women from purchasing or selling alcohol legally until 2025. Similar discriminatory laws have existed in parts of India, Pakistan, and some Gulf nations, regularly justified under cultural or religious norms.

In a long-overdue landmark reform, the archaic and discriminatory regulation banning women from selling and purchasing alcohol in Sri Lanka was finally repealed in July 2025. This outcome is not just a social milestone, but a deeply personal vindication of justice, equality, and most importantly, common sense.

Is this the biggest problem the country is currently facing? Perhaps not. Could it be a symptom of deeper social undercurrents, the type that carries hidden collateral damage? Absolutely yes.

The law that should never have existed

Sri Lankan women were subjected to an outdated provision of the Excise Notification No. 666 of 1979, which prohibited female citizens from being employed in places where liquor is manufactured, bottled, or sold, without prior written permission from the Excise Commissioner. The same law effectively banned women from purchasing alcohol in licensed establishments.

This provision, never properly enforced for decades, was an unaddressed colonial hangover, unjustified under any modern legal or ethical framework. More than just a legal technicality, it symbolised the broader structural discrimination against women in Sri Lanka’s legal system and society.

The 2018 pushback and our legal challenge