A significant development has emerged in the case of a Sri Lankan migrant worker who was sentenced to death in Saudi Arabia over a Facebook comment that he subsequently deleted.
Anojan Sivarasa, 27, from Kalmunai in eastern Sri Lanka, was arrested earlier this year after making a social media comment concerning the Prophet Muhammad.
His case attracted international attention after an initial prison sentence was increased to the death penalty, prompting criticism from human rights organisations and diplomatic intervention from Sri Lankan officials.
Now, following weeks of international pressure, Saudi Arabia's highest court has made a major decision about his punishment.
Saudi Arabia's Supreme Court overturns death sentence
On Wednesday, 14 October 2026, Saudi Arabia's Supreme Court overturned the death sentence imposed on Sivarasa.
The decision was confirmed by Sri Lanka's Deputy Foreign Minister Arun Hemachandra, who announced the development in a Facebook post.
Hemachandra expressed appreciation for the work undertaken by officials and legal representatives in both Sri Lanka and Saudi Arabia.
The ruling means Sivarasa is no longer subject to the death sentence that had previously been imposed.
However, important questions remain about his legal status.
It has not yet been confirmed whether further court proceedings will take place, whether his original prison sentence could remain in effect or when he might be released from detention.
The Supreme Court's decision therefore represents a major development but does not necessarily mean that the criminal case has concluded.
Why was Anojan Sivarasa sentenced to death?
Sivarasa's legal difficulties began following an online argument in June 2026.
According to reporting by the BBC, the dispute involved a viral video that allegedly showed a Muslim man kicking a stray dog accompanying Hindu pilgrims.
As the video circulated on Facebook, users began arguing about religion.
One commenter reportedly made insulting remarks about a Hindu deity, prompting Sivarasa to respond with a comment in Tamil that insulted the Prophet Muhammad.
Although Sivarasa later deleted his comment and published an apology video, screenshots of the original post had already been captured.
Those screenshots were reportedly forwarded to his employer and subsequently passed to Saudi police.
Sivarasa was arrested in July, having spent less than a year working in Saudi Arabia.
Authorities reportedly seized his electronic devices, and his social media accounts were subsequently deleted.
Original prison sentence increased to death penalty
The case initially proceeded through the Al-Ahsa Criminal Court, where Sivarasa was reportedly sentenced to five years in prison.
He was also ordered to pay a fine of three million Saudi riyals, equivalent to approximately $800,000.
However, the situation became significantly more serious when prosecutors challenged the original punishment.
On 17 September, Saudi prosecutors appealed for the case to be considered under Sharia law.
The appellate court accepted the prosecution's request and increased Sivarasa's punishment to the death penalty.
The escalation from a prison sentence to a possible execution prompted alarm among human rights organisations and members of the Sri Lankan public.
Campaigners argued that imposing capital punishment over a social media comment represented an extreme and disproportionate response.
Amnesty International demanded his immediate release
Amnesty International was among the organisations calling for Saudi authorities to release Sivarasa.
The organisation argued that he had been exercising his right to freedom of expression and should not face imprisonment or execution for his online remarks.
Heba Morayef, Amnesty International's regional director for the Middle East and North Africa, criticised the dramatic escalation in his sentence.
She warned that the case raised serious concerns about the application of capital punishment and the unpredictability of the Saudi criminal justice system.
Amnesty also argued that executing Sivarasa over the Facebook comment would constitute an arbitrary deprivation of life.
The organisation called for his immediate and unconditional release.
Human Rights Watch condemns punishment over social media post
Human Rights Watch also expressed concern about the case.
Joey Shea, a senior researcher specialising in Saudi Arabia, criticised the use of restrictive laws to impose severe punishments for speech-related offences.
She highlighted the vulnerability of migrant workers, who may face additional difficulties obtaining legal assistance and protecting their rights while living abroad.
The organisation argued that Saudi authorities should stop imposing extraordinary sentences on people for expressing opinions online.
The case became part of a wider debate about freedom of expression, religious offences and the treatment of foreign workers in Saudi Arabia.
What role did Sri Lankan officials play?
Sri Lankan authorities became involved after news of Sivarasa's death sentence emerged.
Diplomatic efforts were undertaken to seek a resolution and prevent his execution.
Following the Supreme Court's decision, Deputy Foreign Minister Arun Hemachandra publicly acknowledged the contribution of officials and legal representatives involved in the case.
However, the full details of the diplomatic negotiations and legal arguments that led to the reversal have not been publicly disclosed.
It is therefore unclear which specific factors were decisive in the Supreme Court's ruling.
Saudi Arabia faces scrutiny over use of death penalty
Saudi Arabia has faced longstanding criticism from international human rights organisations over its use of capital punishment.
According to figures cited by The Independent, the country carried out at least 356 executions in 2025, exceeding the 345 recorded in 2024.
Human rights campaigners have raised concerns about the range of offences that can attract severe punishment and the legal protections available to defendants.
Saudi authorities maintain that their criminal justice system operates according to the country's laws and judicial procedures.
Sivarasa's case has attracted particular attention because it concerns a social media comment rather than an allegation of physical violence.
What happens next to Anojan Sivarasa?
Although the Supreme Court has overturned the death sentence, Sivarasa's immediate future remains uncertain.
There has been no confirmed announcement that he has been released from custody or permitted to return to Sri Lanka.
It is also unclear whether the case will be reconsidered by another court or whether a different punishment could be imposed.
Human rights organisations are likely to continue monitoring the case while his legal status remains unresolved.
For Sivarasa and his family, the ruling removes the immediate prospect of execution under the overturned sentence, but further clarification is needed before his ordeal can be considered over.
The case has also renewed international attention on the consequences of online speech in countries where religious offences can carry severe criminal penalties.
