Features

“When Justice Steps In: The Supreme Court Breaks the Cycle of Ragging Impunity”

Published

10 months ago

2025/12/14

The Supreme Court (SC) intervention in granting leave to proceed with two fundamental petitions under case no SC/FR/101/2025 – filed over the tragic ragging that resulted in the death of Charith Dilshan Dushantha, a second year student of Sabaragamuwa University of Sri Lanka (SUSL) and the ten interim orders imposed a damning indictment on the authorities who have allegedly failed to enforce anti-ragging laws and administrative guidelines.

The SC held that the two petitioners, namely Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) and the parents of the victim had established a prima-facie case suggesting a possible violation of Article 12(1) of the Constitution, which guarantees equal protection of the law.

What is to be emphasized here is not only the granting of leave but the severity of interim orders served on the 69 respondents until the final determination of the case calling for documentary evidence on the prerogative actions taken within the confines of the law assigned to them by the statutes. The two petitioners contend that the tragedy was not an isolated failure but the result of systematic negligence by university authorities, University Grant Commission (UGC), Vice Chancellors of the Universities, law enforcement officials and other relevant institutions.

For thousands of students, gaining admission to a university is a moment of triumph – the result of years of hard work and perseverance sleepless nights, steadfast pursuit. They enter these seats of higher learnings with dreams of knowledge, growth and a future filled with promise and assurance. But the hard reality of the fact is these dreams had been mercilessly and brutally shattered by a handful of misguided youth, well-knowing the lackadaisical attitude and inaction by the authorities over the decades.

Before dealing with the far-reaching initiatives and healthy signals contained in the interim orders, it may be opportune to appraise the readers of the remedial measures initiated by the government with a view to eradicating ragging menace from the Universities. A noteworthy legislative enactment was promulgated as far back as 1998 – Prohibition of Ragging another Forms of Violence in Educational Institutions Act No 20 of 1998 criminalizing the ragging within the university premises. But what was alarming was not only the freshers but also the seniors have been subjected to harassment and abuse in the name of ragging after the law came in to effect, resulting over the anxiety, depression, post-traumatic disorders. Some have never returned to their studies, denying of the future they once envisioned.

Failure of Enforcement

It should be explicitly placed on record that the persistence of ragging in Sri Lankan Universities manifestly signals a distinct failure of enforcement, awareness and institutional accountability. Universities have a moral obligation to protect students, yet many authorities have continued a blind eye, allowing this barbarian culture to persist. Administrative bodies have often failed to investigate complaints properly leaving victims without justice and indirectly supporting perpetrators.

The aforesaid anti-ragging Act empowers the Universities to adopt a zero-tolerance conducive environment allowing the students to concentrate on studies free from harassments, bullying and other forms of intimidations. Many students remain unaware of their rights and legal protections. Universities must conduct awareness programs that educate students about ragging, its dangers, the support and systems, legal remedies recourse to them. Counselling systems and safe reporting mechanisms must be strengthened.

Contrary what has happened is that the perpetrators have taken the ragging culture outside the university premises after the promulgation of the law. A case in point was the brutally assault on an anti-ragging student at his private boarding house by 20 students of the Faculty of Technology of the Sri Jayawardanapura University for opposing the ragging culture on the 29^th April 2025. The people are not aware whether the University Administration or the long arm of the law moved quickly and dealt with these criminals.

Autonomy for wisdom and not for thuggerism

Sri Lankan Universities should be places of learning, innovation, research and development and personal growth free from intimidations. The eternal hope with which students enter university must be protected and safeguarded by the authorities. It appears that the SC has taken cognizance these facts as a whole and issued interim orders, which would pave a detrimental effect not only the violent students and backed by their student councils but also on the weak-kneed officers and authorities. It must be stated here that ending ragging is not just about enforcing laws alone. A much-broader multifaceted issue transforming mindsets authorities, students, law enforcement agencies and all the stakeholders. It is earnest believed that the SC intervention could go a long way in transforming this mindset

Importance of Awareness of legal protection

It shall be the bounden duty of the stakeholders to create an awareness for the students about the legal protection available to them prior to the commencement of the academic sessions in the universities. Such an awareness program would be extremely helpful for the students, under graduates, parents of the students. I am glad that Gaveshi Foundation of Gampaha has taken the bold initiative of taking this message for the benefit of the students who are qualified to enter universities. Similarly, it is time for the Companies to conduct similar programs under their CSR projects.

This article would be incomplete that the incidents of ragging which resulted in the death of under-graduates is not highlighted after the promulgation of the law – Prohibition of Ragging other Forms of Violence in Educational Institutions Act No 20 of 1998. (See Tabel)

The need of the hour is to instil the discipline at every layer of the universities without belittling the decency of this golden rule and to establish a violent free environment and the UGC and the relevant officials should have the courage and the will to bell the cat by taking the maximum support of the legal mechanisms afforded to them by the enactments.

Immediate Interventions needed

Now that SC has displayed a legalistic intervention with the sole objective of eradicating this ragging menace, a multifaceted approach should be vigorously persuaded to instil a ragging free culture in the universities. Such programs include educational reforms, psychological support and counselling to both victims and raggers, policy enforcement to implement anti-ragging laws and punish the culprits, criminalize ragging, expose and depoliticize student unions, banning of raggers from public employment and university academic positions and the create more open space for whistleblowers .

Ragging and Loss of life from the viewpoint of Senior Academic

From the viewpoint of Professor O.A. IIeperuma, an eminent senior academic says in an article published that inhuman ragging goes unabated due to the fault of the universities. Vice Chancellors are mortally scared of these violent student groups backed by their unions to taken punitive action against the perpetrators of violence. Vice Chancellors tend to paint a picture of a peaceful atmosphere in the universities to show their political masters. Vice Chancellors are also aware of instances where strong action taken against ragging by the Vice Chancellors have resulted in their removal such as Prof. Epitawatta at Sri Jayawardnapura University and Professor Sujeewa Amarasena at the Ruhuna University.

Vice Chancellors desist from taking action against raggers because of their fear that the student will organize protests and even resort to physical violence against them. Academic staff also turn blind eye even when see instances where ragging is openly carried out by the seniors.

This may be because they themselves were raggers in the past and see nothing harmful in such sordid instances of ragging. Prof. Ileperuma says that unlike in the past ragging today is inhuman, violating privacy and forcing helpless undergraduates in the worst forms of human torture.

Ragging is most violent in halls of residence where the wardens and sub wardens simply turn the other way and never try to stop this menace. According to Prof. Ileperuma Police are to be blamed for not taking action against ragging under the Anti-Ragging Act. Sometime ago, Police is reported have stated that all forms of ragging should be reported to the CID but nothing happened under this arrangement. Similarly, Attorney General is reported to have given an undertaking to the Supreme Court that the Vice Chancellors have been instructed to prevent ragging in the universities. And since then nothing substantial has come out.

Similarly, the Attorney General’s Department takes years to prosecute raggers who have been caught red-handed, produced before the judges and release the raggers on bail. Professsor Ileperuma contends that political parties who back the student unions cry themselves hoarse for preserving free education but they do not have the slightest idea that these ragging incidents are a big threat to free education. It must be said with profound salute to the SC that the interim injections have penetrated in to all these vital factors with a view to eradicating this ragging culture.

SC’s formidable Intervention is a blessing in disguise

Sri Lanka now stands at a decisive crossroads where the culture of fear, silence and institutional paralysis that enabled ragging for decades can no longer be tolerated or excused. The Supreme Court’s bold intervention has, for the first time in recent memory, pierced through the bureaucratic lethargy that allowed this cruelty to flourish unchecked. By demanding accountability from every layer of authority—university administrators, law-enforcement agencies, regulatory bodies and political overseers—the Court has reaffirmed that the lives and dignity of students are not bargaining chips in a system long compromised by inaction, indifference and political patronage. This judicial awakening signals to the nation that the protection of young scholars is not optional but a constitutional duty.

It is now incumbent upon the stakeholders to transform this legal momentum into lasting cultural reform: to dismantle impunity, empower victims, expose perpetrators, and cultivate universities where learning—not intimidation—defines the student experience. If the Supreme Court’s intervention becomes the catalyst that finally compels institutions to act with courage, integrity and moral responsibility, then the tragic death of Charith Dilshan will not be another statistic, but a turning point in restoring humanity, discipline and safety to Sri Lanka’s seats of higher learning.

One could obviously foresee the severity of the signals by way of interim orders displayed by the SC on the 69 respondents of the above FR case. Its final determination will be a sure-fire beneficial landmark judgment for all of us to reap the full benefits of the free education hitherto we have not enjoyed.

J.A.A.S.Ranasinghe
Productivity Specialist and Management Consultant

All News Advertisement

Features

Coercive laws recipe for future misrule

Published

14 hours ago

2026/10/13

Sahan Weerasooriya

by Jehan Perera

The NPP government is going after powerful figures from the past and present who have engaged in corruption, fraud and criminal activity in a way that no previous government in Sri Lanka has done. Former ministers, politicians and senior state officials are among those facing investigations and legal proceedings. The government has placed before Parliament a document listing 50 cases involving corruption, fraud and other crimes. These include not only financial offences but also cases relating to the Easter Sunday attacks, the killings of Lasantha Wickrematunge and Wasim Thajudeen, the disappearance of Prageeth Ekneligoda and attacks on journalists Keith Noyahr and Upali Tennakoon.

The significance of this effort is that it can demonstrate that nobody is above the law, regardless of political connections or social standing, which will help restore public confidence in institutions that have long been distrusted. It could also recover public resources, improve the investment climate and strengthen the foundations for a more prosperous and just Sri Lanka. When criticised for focusing on the past and not the present, the government position is that these investigations were initiated under earlier governments, particularly between 2015 and 2019, and that it is now allowing investigators to proceed to deal with the backlog without political interference.

But there is an aspect of the government’s approach that is less justifiable. While pursuing past wrongdoing by powerful individuals, it is also advancing a triumvirate of draft laws that could give the state sweeping powers over citizens, organisations and dissent in the present and future. The draft Prevention of Terrorism legislation, the Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill and the NGO Registration and Supervision Bill raise serious questions about the over-centralisation of power. Each of these laws strengthens the powers of the state while weakening the rights and safeguards that protect people from their misuse and thus questions the basic rights of people in democracy where ‘the power of the people is vested in the government’. This is a recipe for future misrule rather than the rule of law. As the well-known saying goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Proposed Laws

The real test of system change, for which the government obtained an overwhelming mandate, requires not only a government willing to hold others accountable, but one prepared to subject itself to the same principles of legality, transparency and restraint. The three proposed laws that are particularly important in this regard are the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill, the Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill and the NGO Registration and Supervision Bill. Each of these draft laws has been presented as serving a legitimate purpose. Preventing terrorism, combating organised crime and ensuring that NGOs do not facilitate money laundering or terrorist financing are proper responsibilities of the state. Sri Lanka has international obligations in these areas, and no responsible government can disregard them. However, the existence of a legitimate objective does not justify every means adopted to achieve it.

The proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill illustrates the problem. Although its definition of terrorism draws on a model developed by a former United Nations Special Rapporteur, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka has warned that the definition of terrorism extends beyond the model and could bring legitimate political protest, trade union action and civil disobedience within the scope of counter-terrorism legislation. Its concerns also include prolonged detention, inadequate judicial oversight and restrictions on access to legal counsel. These are objections that go to the heart of the relationship between the citizen and the state. The government cannot credibly promise to protect democratic freedoms while creating powers that could be used to restrict them. It is necessary for the government to reassess the draft through transparent consultation and revise provisions that could criminalise legitimate dissent.

The Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill raises similar concerns. It is presented as giving effect to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime, which Sri Lanka ratified in 2006. The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) has argued that the convention does not require many of the bill’s provisions. The proposed law extends to a broad range of offences, permits detention orders lasting up to a year, makes confessions to police admissible for purposes of legal evidence, and introduces extensive surveillance powers. A law intended to dismantle criminal networks should not create a parallel system of exceptional powers that could be applied far beyond organised crime. Nor should safeguards developed through years of experience with abuses under the Prevention of Terrorism Act be weakened through legislation bearing a different name. The government should review whether or not existing laws could be used effectively to control these crimes or whether each exceptional power is necessary.

Civil Society

The proposed NGO Registration and Supervision Bill presents another test of the government’s intentions. The government may reasonably seek transparency in the finances of organisations receiving public or foreign funds, including measures to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing. It seeks to justify its overreach on the grounds of meeting the internationally mandated requirements of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) for the Asia-Pacific region. But these objectives do not justify placing civil society and NGOs under excessive administrative control when even the FATF ranks them as low to medium risks. The draft bill would require registration and renewal, impose extensive obligations on organisations and empower authorities to suspend or deregister them on broadly framed grounds. It is important to redraft provisions that confer excessive discretion over registration, renewal, suspension and deregistration of NGOs.

Among the concerns raised by United Nations human rights special rapporteurs with regard to the draft NGO law are provisions requiring organisations to align with government policies and restrictions that could affect advocacy, dissent and freedom of association. The implications extend well beyond organisations that engage directly with the government. Community groups, human rights organisations, independent researchers and organisations working on reconciliation or accountability could find their activities constrained by uncertainty over how these provisions might be interpreted. Organisations that criticise government policies are not thereby working against the country. Their freedom to do so is part of what distinguishes a democracy from a system in which the government determines which opinions and activities are acceptable.

The government has generated considerable public goodwill through its pursuit of corruption and criminality. It should not assume that this goodwill gives it an unlimited mandate to strengthen the coercive powers of the state. The NPP knows from its own history that governments can treat dissent as a threat and use the machinery of the state against their opponents. There is still time to correct the drafts through transparent public consultation, narrow definitions of offences, meaningful judicial control over detention and surveillance, and effective remedies against arbitrary decisions. A government that pursues corruption while weakening safeguards against state abuse risks undermining its own achievements. Besides bringing to light the abuse of power by previous governments, the NPP government needs to build a system in which no future government can abuse power in the belief they can get away with it.

Features

Quality assurance without quality enhancement: The irony of university QA

Published

14 hours ago

2026/10/13

Sahan Weerasooriya

By Ramya Kumar

According to the Quality Assurance Council (QAC) of the University Grants Commission (UGC), quality assurance (QA) refers to “the means (i.e. the policies, attitudes, actions, procedures, etc.), by which an institution can guarantee with confidence and certainty, that the standards and quality of its educational provision are being maintained and enhanced”.

An expansive structure has been in place since 2005 to govern and implement QA processes within the state university system. The QAC is the focal point at the UGC that implements external reviews of state universities and institutes. Each university has its own Centre for Quality Assurance (CQA) tasked with performing QA in line with QAC directives. Faculties, in turn, have Internal Quality Assurance Cells (IQAC) performing their own QA; they are answerable to the CQA.

The big question is whether this all-encompassing top-down QA system, that in many ways undermines the internal dynamics of university governance, actually supports universities to enhance the quality of education. This article highlights some concerns.

Top-down check-box activities

The QAC conducts external reviews of universities and degree programmes. A review team appointed by the UGC (who may or may not have experience in the institution/programme in question) examines the self-evaluation report submitted by the said institution/programme. The team then conducts a site visit to verify the claims made in the university’s self-evaluation report, clarify issues identified during the desk review, and examine how QA procedures operate in practice. The team holds meetings with the university administration, members of the Council and Senate, Deans, Heads of Departments, academic and non-academic staff, students, and others. Following the visit, a draft report is submitted to the relevant institution/programme for comment before final publication. The reviewed institution/programme then prepares and publishes an action plan addressing the recommendations, with subsequent monitoring of progress.

There are some worthy QA initiatives under implementation, such as improving facilities for students with disabilities and strengthening mechanisms to address sexual- and gender-based violence. However, for the most part, QA activities have little to do with improving the quality of education. They are mostly preoccupied with monitoring faculty and department websites, digital transformation, student feedback, subject evaluation, course evaluation, peer evaluation, and, more recently, staff appraisal. These activities, which consume an inordinate amount of time—so precious at understaffed universities—have become check-box activities completed to generate evidence for the next review. Below is an excerpt of a conversation between two academics (1 and 2) that conveys how QA plays out at universities (reproduced with permission).

1: … .it’s like social media you know, like posting things on Facebook or twitter or Instagram. When people do a lot of social media, everything they do, they do thinking, “okay I’m going to post it in this way… this I have to put on my Instagram.” QA is a little like that… everything is considered in light of, “ah we can use this for the review, as evidence… for example very recently we were encouraged to have all the things that we do in our department in the faculty newsletter so then they can put in the review. Every little thing has to be noted down….

2: And with pictures and all…

1: At the very least it has to be written so that you have written evidence .. you can’t be doing something for the sake of doing something or because it is good for the department … and sometimes people tell me “oh yea that’s a good idea we can fit that under this x, y section of the review..”

2: Yea, and nobody really thinks about the actual outcome… whether it’s actually helping anyone..

1: I also find that a lot of the words that we used in different ways have now been co-opted to the QA discourse ..including quality.. I can’t actually say what I want as an “outcome”, for example, that the outcome of this workshop is that my students “think about” … then I am told “ah but no that’s not one of the Bloom’s taxonomy words, “think about”.…

2: And the worst part is these medical and agriculture people, these types of people go around spreading it like some kind of gospel!

1: Yea, this cookie cutter way of doing things, they think is the height of innovativeness or creativity, when actually it is so mundane … for me the most awful thing about it is like some fungus of mundanity has taken over through QA reviews.

2: yea, when you say QA, my mind closes off immediately and I stop listening…

Auditing everything but power

QA leaves out crucial aspects of university governance. For instance, there is no review or assessment of the “quality” of university administrations under Criterion 1 or the integrity of procedures governing the promotion of academic staff under Criterion 6 of the institutional reviews.

The majority in the Council—the university’s executive and governing body, which is responsible for selecting the Vice-Chancellor (VC)—are appointed in ad hoc fashion. Apart from the Ex-Officio members in the Council (VC, Deans, etc.), and the two members elected by the Senate, the remainder are appointed by the UGC with no formal consultation or vetting procedure. The VC appointment process described in UGC Circular No. 03/2023 exemplifies how an ostensibly technical process can become entangled in political sycophancy. The Registrar invites applications for the position of VC through advertisement. Applicants must submit a curriculum vitae, a statement of vision for the university and supporting documents. The University Council appoints a three-member Search Committee of senior academics to encourage “eminent persons” to apply, while the UGC appoints a former VC from another university to “observe” the selection process.

A Special Meeting of the University Council is convened. Candidates are interviewed and must make a presentation to the Council Members, followed by questions. Each Council member “gives marks” for seven prescribed criteria: strategic focus (20%), effective leadership (20%), holistic thinking/conceptual skills (10%), academic and research excellence (15%), personal integrity (10%), professional communication (10%) and managerial competence (15%). Marks are averaged, and the Council recommends three candidates to the UGC in rank order. The UGC-appointed observer separately submits a confidential report on the selection process.

This procedure is expected to guarantee quality, but does it? Applications are submitted to the Council Members, who have been appointed on questionable bases, and who are expected to review the applications and give scores, based on objective assessments. But, in reality, most Council Members are manipulated by VC candidates, who often have personal ties with them. The UGC-appointed observer usually has no genuine interest in the outcome. And there is no way for anyone to actually question the Council’s decision once it is made. Although the highest-ranked candidate may ultimately be appointed, the selection remains a political decision made by the President, who retains the discretion to appoint any one of the three.

External reviews also do not look into the promotions of academic staff, except to scrutinise whether there are policies and procedures in place to govern promotion. Academic staff may apply for promotion to Professor once they satisfy the prescribed eligibility requirements, which typically include the period of service, academic qualifications, research and publication achievements, teaching experience, and contributions to the university and wider community. Applications are evaluated against specified criteria, with research output and academic contributions assessed through documentary evidence and expert evaluation. Under the UGC’s scheme for Professors, two experts from outside the applicant’s institution assess specified aspects of research and knowledge dissemination. Again, beneath this technical process, which is externally evaluated, lies a problematic points-based scheme that can be manipulated and abused with impunity.

Rethinking university QA

Like the VC election process and the schemes of promotion for academic staff, QA reviews are open to manipulation. Before a review, there is a chaotic rush to complete evidence gathering and reporting. Academics leave all other work aside, including at times their teaching, to focus on completing documentation and preparing reports. The standardised criteria in the review manuals and scoring sheets often do not reflect differences in disciplines and institutional contexts. But this does not really matter because any serious problems experienced by institutions or programmes are hastily brushed under the carpet to conceal any evidence that could taint the review. The goal is to obtain an A or at least a B grade at whatever cost.

QA may result in positive change if it moves beyond top-down check-box activities towards internally designed and owned processes encompassing all aspects of university governance, led by departments and faculties, and supported by adequate resources. The current QA system needs to be dismantled and replaced by procedures that are accountable, not to the UGC, but to our students and the communities we serve.

(Ramya Kumar is attached to the Department of Community and Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Jaffna)

. Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.

Features

Down Memory Lane — the Grand 20th Edition!

Published

14 hours ago

2026/10/13

Sahan Weerasooriya

Down Memory Lane: Ready to sing again

Yes, Down Memory Lane, the beloved Sing-Along concert series that first struck a chord, way back in 1997, returns for its landmark 20th edition this Saturday, 17th October, at the beautiful Bolgoda Grand Resort, Moratuwa town centre.

Having celebrated its glorious 25th anniversary with the show in 2023, this milestone 20th concert promises to be even more special.

The organisers, the ever-popular Moratuwa Arts Forum, are pulling out all the stops to present yet another unforgettable evening, brimming with camaraderie, fellowship, and pure nostalgia.

Get ready for two-and-a-half hours of non-stop singing as veteran vocalists, from the Moratuwa Arts Forum, will take the stage to lead and inspire the happy audience to sing, sing and sing to their hearts’ content.

The repertoire? Absolutely magical, according to the organisers.

Veteran Arun Dias Bandaranaike: Will handle the evening’s proceedings / Priya Peiris: Event Conceptor

Around 40 golden oldies — from timeless English vintage evergreens and hits from the 50s to the 90s, to toe-tapping calypsos, soulful American plantation melodies, rousing cowboy and Dixieland favourites, aa well as cherished Sinhala standards. All to be sung with much gusto!

This year’s dedicated organising committee comprises Brian Coorey (Chairman), Priya Peiris (Event Conceptor), Hiran Fernando, Suranga Fernando, Viranjan Perera, Hemka Fernando and Neelesh Silva. Guidance and support comes from Moratuwa Arts Forum President Sarana Guneratne and Secretary Chandani Silva.

Adding his signature charm to the evening, as Master of Ceremonies, will be the veteran Arun Dias Bandaranaike.

Don’t miss this landmark celebration of music and memories!

For further details, contact Hiran Fernando on 0772636446 or WhatsApp 0783636446.