Using Christianity against a Judge: The Padman Surasena Controversy

The Book of Josippon, a medieval Jewish chronicle, tells the story of a man named Daniel, a Jewish exile in Babylon who served in the royal court of King Darius the Mede. The king planned to appoint Daniel over the entire kingdom due to his exceptional wisdom and integrity. This decision sparked jealousy among other officials, who conspired to bring him down. They found no fault in Daniel apart from his faith in God. The officials manipulated King Darius into signing a decree that forbade prayer to anyone except the king for 30 days. Daniel continued to pray openly and was reported to the king. Although Darius was distressed and wished to save him, the law of the Medes and Persians could not be changed. Daniel was thrown into the lions’ den, yet God delivered him unharmed. Now, what does this ancient tale have to do with the controversy surrounding Justice Padman Soorasena?

Sri Lanka’s Chief Justice is set to retire in July 2025, and speculation over his replacement is already underway. Justice Padman Surasena, a senior Supreme Court judge, is one of the leading candidates. Several offshore media outlets have accused him of sexual misconduct and aligning verdicts with political interests (Source: Epistle News). However, these allegations have yet to be proven and appear increasingly doubtful. (The local mainstream media has not reported on this matter.) With little evidence supporting the claims, critics seem to be focusing instead on his Christian faith as a way to undermine him. In Sri Lanka, where religion is deeply connected to identity and politics, using his faith in this way feels less like a demand for transparency and more like a calculated attack. This strategy shifts the debate away from his legal qualifications toward suspicion and mistrust. It is rare for a judge’s faith to dominate headlines, yet that is the reality now. So, the question remains: who is driving this narrative and why?

Ghost Profiles and Shadow Domains

Answering the question of who is targeting Justice Padman Surasena, I first came across the controversy through an Instagram post. Upon closer inspection, it became clear the account spreading those claims was fake. That post, like many earlier ones, focused on allegations of misconduct and political bias—accusations also echoed by a few offshore websites. More recently, however, a noticeable shift has occurred: the focus has turned to his identity as a born-again Christian. These Instagram posts are boosted to expand their reach. That shift is what this blog post aims to explore. In the meantime the Watch Dog Today website, linked to the Instagram posts in question has described his beliefs as “fanaticism,” using inflammatory and prejudiced Sinhala language. The attack distorts the “born-again” doctrine, which is central not only to Evangelical Christianity but also acknowledged in Catholicism. The way his faith is now being framed—as a liability—raises serious questions about motive. When religion becomes a political weapon, it often reveals more about the attackers than the accused.

Preethi Padman Surasena, formerly a Buddhist and lawyer, has embraced the “Born Again” faith—a U.S.-origin movement seen by many in Sri Lanka as extreme and socially disruptive. His discreet worship under Dr. Lalith Mendis has only deepened concern, with critics questioning whether someone aligned with such a controversial belief system should hold the nation’s highest judicial office in a multi-religious society.

Watch Dog Today

Note: Many overlook that Dr. Lalith Mendis is more than a doctor—he’s also a lay preacher, author, and respected expert in children’s education. His work bridges science and faith, making the attacks against him seem more calculated than mere criticism.

Let’s take a closer look at “Watch Dog Today” (Not to be confused with WatchDog, a fact-checking website and mobile app.), the website playing a key role in amplifying attacks against Chief Justice Padman Surasena. Though its content is in Sinhala and clearly aimed at a Sri Lankan audience, it noticeably avoids using a .LK country top-level domain. This isn’t just a technical choice—registering a .LK domain requires proof of identity, either a national ID or business registration, which adds a layer of accountability. Instead, the site operates under a .COM domain with WHOIS privacy enabled, concealing the registrant’s identity. While not illegal, the anonymity is troubling. Even more telling is the domain’s short registration window—from March 24, 2025, to March 24, 2026—hinting at a temporary, purpose-driven operation. Adding to the concerns, several articles on the site appear to be copied directly from offshore news sources without attribution. This lack of transparency and editorial integrity raises red flags about the site’s true agenda and credibility.

Note: We have chosen not to publish links to the fake Instagram account or the shadow website to prevent future broken links. However, screenshots and supporting material are available upon request.

Anonymous Writers & Invisible Hands

One of the most revealing aspects of this operation is the complete absence of authorial identity. The report circulating online, along with related articles, offers no bylines, editorial credits, or verifiable authorship. This kind of anonymity may seem trivial to the casual reader, but in the world of credible journalism, it is a red flag. Responsible reporting is built on accountability—real journalists sign their names and stake their reputations on the accuracy of their work. Here, the silence is deafening. This is not anonymity in the service of protection, like when whistleblowers speak out at great personal risk. Rather, it’s strategic invisibility—used not to expose wrongdoing but to manufacture it from the shadows. It signals intent to influence without consequence, to distort without being held to account. The result is a narrative that floats freely in the public sphere, untethered from responsibility or truth.

Anonymity, in this context, is not about safety; it’s about control. It allows the narrative to remain fluid, unchallenged, and immune to rebuttal. No author means no one to question. No editor means no standards to uphold. It’s the final piece in a puzzle already filled with ghost profiles, shadow domains, and borrowed content—all pointing to a coordinated and temporary digital campaign rather than a legitimate media effort. This strategy is not designed to inform—it’s designed to destabilize. It operates like a whisper campaign in the digital age, echoing across platforms without ever having a face or a name. When silence and concealment form the foundation of a publication, we are no longer dealing with journalism—we are confronting a tool of manipulation. And in such cases, the real question isn’t “what are they saying?” but “who is saying it—and why are they hiding?”

Using Faith to Qualify Disqualification

To answer the question of why religion is being used in this context, it’s important to understand that in a country where Sinhala Buddhists form the majority, religion is a deeply sensitive subject. It can easily be leveraged to stir public sentiment against an individual. Some have claimed that both leaders of the Roman Catholic Church and prominent Buddhist clergy in Sri Lanka have expressed concern that appointing a born-again Christian as Chief Justice could harm the future of justice in the country—claims that warrant careful scrutiny. The website in question alleges that Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith and leading Buddhist monks have warned against Justice Padman Surasena’s possible appointment. However, there is no credible evidence that Cardinal Ranjith has made any such statement. Likewise, no senior judges have publicly opposed Surasena’s appointment, at least not in any documented or verifiable way.

Let’s be clear: being “born again” is a core belief in mainstream Christianity, not the hallmark of a cult, as some critics misleadingly suggest. It refers to a personal, spiritual renewal—starting a new life by choosing to follow Jesus and live according to His teachings. This doctrine is recognized not only by Protestant churches worldwide but also by the Roman Catholic Church, which affirms spiritual rebirth through baptism and personal faith. Labeling it a cult is a distortion, often rooted in misunderstanding or prejudice. Further, Sri Lanka’s own Constitution protects religious freedom. Article 10 affirms that “Every person is entitled to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.” Article 14(1)(e) further guarantees the right to “manifest his religion or belief… in public or in private.” Together, these laws ensure that every Sri Lankan has the right to believe, practice, and express their faith—without fear, shame, or exclusion.

Wrap Up

Two distinct patterns stand out. First, the English-language sources that Watch Dog Today appears to translate are mostly written by Sri Lankan or Indian authors. Despite the serious nature of their claims—ranging from political bias to alleged misconduct—none have been reported by Sri Lanka’s mainstream media, raising doubts about their credibility. Second, and more concerning, is how Watch Dog Today reframes these narratives in Sinhala. While the original articles include sensational accusations, such as alleged sex scandals involving Justice Soorasena, the Sinhala versions disproportionately highlight his Christian faith, directly suggesting it disqualifies him from public office. This shift in focus reveals a deeper agenda: to stoke religious bias and undermine public trust. By emphasizing faith over facts, Watch Dog Today moves away from objective reporting and into the realm of targeted defamation—fueling division and suspicion under the guise of journalism, rather than upholding truth or accountability.

In closing, it is important to emphasize that a person’s eligibility for public office should never be judged based on their religious beliefs or the opinions of individuals who lack understanding of the role and its requirements. In the case of Chief Justice Padman Soorasena, his Christian faith is being unfairly spotlighted as though it were a liability—when, in fact, religion has no bearing on one’s capacity to uphold the law with integrity and fairness. Furthermore, feedback from religious leaders or commentators who have little to no understanding of judicial process, constitutional law, or the standards of legal appointment cannot be considered a valid measure of his suitability. Judicial roles must be evaluated through legal merit, ethical standards, and professional conduct—not personal belief systems or outsider speculation. To suggest otherwise undermines the very principles of justice, equality, and impartial governance that a functioning democracy depends on.

If you found this content helpful, I kindly ask you to leave your feedback in the comments section below. Sharing it on social media would also be greatly appreciated. In order to promote meaningful and respectful dialogue, I request that you use your full name when commenting. Please note that any comments containing profanity, name-calling, or a disrespectful tone will be deleted. Thank you for your understanding and participation.