Saudi Arabia’s Supreme Court has quashed the judgment sentencing Sri Lankan national Anojan Sivarasa to death. Court documents examined by NewsLine confirm the reversal, but leave an important question unanswered: does the original sentence of five years’ imprisonment and a fine of three million Saudi riyals now stand, or must the courts reconsider the case? The distinction is critical, and the answer may determine how soon Anojan can return home.
Saudi Arabia’s Supreme Court has overturned the judgment imposing the death penalty on Sri Lankan national Anojan Sivarasa, bringing an extraordinary development in a case that has tested Sri Lanka’s diplomatic capabilities, its commitment to protecting citizens overseas and the ability of its legal representatives to navigate an unfamiliar judicial system.
The decision, recorded as Supreme Court Decision No. 8927732 and dated 13 October 2026, quashes the judgment of the Seventh Criminal Circuit of the Court of Appeal in Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province. That appellate judgment had replaced an earlier five-year prison sentence and a substantial fine with the death penalty under Islamic Sharia law.
Submit Your Press Release
Get your company news, announcements, launches, appointments and events in front of a wider audience.
NewsLine has examined the 14-page English translation of the appellate court documentation, including the final notation recording the Supreme Court’s intervention. The document establishes that the death sentence has been quashed. It does not, however, reproduce the Supreme Court’s reasoning or specify what further orders, if any, were made concerning the original conviction and punishment.
That is no small distinction.
Anojan, a young Sri Lankan migrant worker from the Eastern Province, was prosecuted following a Facebook comment considered offensive to the Prophet Muhammad. The comment arose during an online altercation involving religious insults. According to the court record, Anojan admitted publishing the comment but maintained that it had been made in anger, without premeditation, and that he deleted it approximately ten minutes later.
He subsequently expressed remorse and apologised. His defence argued that the incident was isolated, that there was no established history of similar conduct and that the punishment should reflect both the circumstances of the offence and his personal situation.
The original Criminal Court in Al-Ahsa convicted him under Sharia principles and Saudi Arabia’s Anti-Cyber Crime Law. It imposed five years’ imprisonment, a fine of three million Saudi riyals, confiscation of the digital device involved and closure of the relevant social media account.
The prosecution was dissatisfied with that outcome and appealed, seeking a more severe punishment. Anojan’s lawyers also challenged the original sentence, arguing that the maximum penalties imposed were disproportionate.
The Court of Appeal subsequently overturned the original judgment and sentenced Anojan to death as a hadd punishment.
The distinction between hadd, a punishment associated with offences for which Islamic jurisprudence prescribes particular penalties, and ta’zir, a discretionary punishment determined by judicial authority, became central to the legal controversy.
The appellate judgment devoted considerable attention to classical Islamic jurisprudence and religious authorities concerning insults directed at the Prophet Muhammad. Its reasoning went substantially beyond the statutory penalties prescribed under the Anti-Cyber Crime Law.
The Supreme Court has now quashed that judgment. Whether its intervention specifically concerns the classification of the offence, the legal reasoning supporting the death penalty, procedural questions or some combination of these matters cannot be conclusively determined from the appellate document alone.
What can be said is that the judgment ordering Anojan’s execution has been set aside.
The development follows sustained diplomatic and legal efforts by the Sri Lankan Government, including the involvement of President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath and Sri Lanka’s diplomatic mission in Saudi Arabia.
A Sri Lankan legal delegation travelled to Saudi Arabia to work alongside Saudi counsel. The delegation included President’s Counsel Faiszer Musthapha and President’s Counsel Upul Kumarapperuma, whose involvement brought additional senior legal expertise to a case where the consequences of failure could scarcely have been greater.
Both senior counsel travelled at their own expense, according to information previously provided to NewsLine.
Additional Solicitor General Azad Navavi and other legal professionals were also involved in the wider legal effort, while Sri Lanka’s Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Ameer Ajwad, and embassy officials pursued the diplomatic and consular aspects of the case.
The Government deserves recognition for maintaining its engagement and supporting a coordinated legal response. So do the lawyers and diplomats whose efforts contributed to bringing the matter before Saudi Arabia’s highest court.
There is, however, an important distinction between acknowledging that contribution and declaring the entire case concluded.
The Supreme Court’s intervention does not, on the documentation presently available, establish that Anojan has been acquitted. Nor does it establish that the original five-year prison sentence and three-million-riyal fine have automatically been reinstated.
That question requires examination of the Supreme Court’s actual decision and any directions accompanying it.
It is particularly important because the original judgment imposed penalties under Saudi Arabia’s Anti-Cyber Crime Law, whereas the appellate judgment imposed the death penalty under Sharia jurisprudence.
The legal consequences of quashing the appellate judgment may therefore extend beyond simply removing the death sentence. The case may require further judicial consideration, although the available document does not establish whether a retrial, reconsideration or other proceeding has been ordered.
For Anojan and his family, the immediate relief is considerable. A young man who faced execution is no longer subject to the appellate judgment ordering his death.
Yet the prospect of continued imprisonment and a fine equivalent to approximately US$800,000 remains a serious concern until his legal position is clarified.
There is also a wider lesson in the handling of this case.
Sri Lanka has previously experienced the anguish of watching a citizen face execution overseas. The case of Rizana Nafeek, the young Sri Lankan domestic worker executed in Saudi Arabia in 2013, remains a painful chapter in the country’s history of migrant-worker protection.
The two cases are legally different and should not be treated as interchangeable. Nevertheless, they underline the importance of securing competent legal representation at the earliest possible stage, understanding the applicable legal system and ensuring that diplomatic intervention supports rather than substitutes for the judicial process.
In Anojan’s case, the combination of Sri Lankan and Saudi legal expertise appears to have provided a more focused legal response. The involvement of senior counsel familiar with the demands of complex litigation, working with Saudi practitioners possessing direct knowledge of the Kingdom’s laws and procedures, was particularly important.
The Supreme Court’s decision should not be presented as a personal victory for any politician, lawyer or government official. It is, above all, a development of immense consequence for a Sri Lankan citizen and his family.
The Government has indicated that it will continue supporting Anojan as the remaining legal processes are concluded. That undertaking matters because the next stage may prove decisive in determining whether he remains in custody or can eventually return to Sri Lanka.
The immediate responsibility is to establish precisely what the Supreme Court has ordered, whether the original sentence remains legally operative and what avenues are available for securing Anojan’s release.
There is also the question of the substantial fine. If any financial penalty survives the Supreme Court’s intervention, its enforceability and the possibility of further legal relief will require careful examination.
For the moment, the central fact is both clear and significant. Saudi Arabia’s highest court has intervened to quash a judgment that would have resulted in the execution of a Sri Lankan citizen.
It would be premature to describe this as a complete legal victory. It would be equally unreasonable to diminish the significance of what has been achieved.
Be that as it may, the measure of success will not ultimately be the number of officials claiming credit for the outcome. It will be whether Anojan Sivarasa can emerge from this ordeal alive, with his legal position resolved and the possibility of returning to his family.
The death sentence has been quashed. The work of securing his future must continue.
