COLOMBO: Sri Lanka's controversial Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill has faced 20 petitions in the Supreme Court challenging its constitutionality, Deputy Speaker Rizvi Salih told Parliament on Tuesday.

Salih said the Speaker had received copies of the petitions filed under Article 121(1) of the Constitution, which allows citizens to challenge a bill's constitutionality in the Supreme Court within one week of it being placed in Parliament.

After hearing the petitions, the Supreme Court will convey its decision to the Speaker, as provided in the Constitution.

The bill, tabled on October 20, has drawn criticism from local and international rights groups, which have warned that its provisions could undermine fundamental rights and grant authorities sweeping powers.

Human Rights Watch said last week the proposed legislation risked enabling arbitrary detention, torture and other rights violations.

The New York-based rights group said the bill, along with the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill -- both introduced last month -- reproduced abusive provisions in existing counterterrorism laws.

It warned that the proposed legislation could perpetuate abuses that the government had pledged to end.

Amnesty International also called for the withdrawal of the bill, saying it granted authorities sweeping powers to tackle organised crime while undermining the rights of suspects.

The rights organisation said the bill contained provisions allowing confessions extracted under duress to be admitted in court, detention of suspects for up to two years without trial and restrictions on media reporting of court proceedings.

It also said the proposed law gave police wide powers to conduct searches without warrants and allowed imprisonment for failing to provide information to authorities.

The proposed legislation defines an "organised criminal group" as three or more people acting together to commit one or more serious crimes to obtain, directly or indirectly, financial or other material benefits.

Critics have raised concerns over provisions allowing courts to consider a person's alleged membership of an organised criminal group based on factors such as physical or virtual meetings with known members, clothing, hand signs, language, tattoos, association with members or frequent visits to premises linked to the group.

Rights groups have warned that such provisions could criminalise association rather than specific criminal conduct and enable detention without evidence of wrongdoing.