On 9 July this year, the Supreme Court (SC) – in an opinion by Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne, which was joined by Justices K. Priyantha Fernando and Sobhitha Rajakaruna – delivered a landmark judgment in SC Fundamental Rights (FR) Application Number 216/2020 (Jayasingha Arachchige Shermila Priyadarshani Silva on behalf of Jayasingha Arachchige Pasindu Hirushan Silva vs. The University Grants Commission [UGC] and Others) that may finally offer hope to thousands of young students threatened by the menace of ragging in state universities in the country.
This FR petition was filed by the family of Pasindu Hirushan Silva, a first-year undergraduate of the University of Sri Jayewardenepura, who suffered catastrophic injuries during a senior-organised ‘welcome’ event in March 2020.
Far from a mere isolated incident, this case laid bare the entrenched culture of violence and impunity within Sri Lanka’s higher education institutions. The SC, recognising the institutional neglect and the inadequacy of the existing safeguards, expanded the scope of the case beyond the individual violation of rights. It issued a set of enforceable guidelines designed to transform university environments into safer, more accountable spaces.
The petitioner, Pasindu Hirushan Silva, was a student who had just enrolled at the Management Studies and Commerce Faculty in the said university. He also pursued studies in chartered accountancy, supported himself financially, and was known for his involvement in sports and extracurricular activities.
On the night of 6 March 2020, during a celebration organised at the university to mark the end of the ragging period, tragedy struck. A massive backhoe tire was rolled down a flight of stairs and it crashed into Pasindu Hirushan Silva, who stood at the base of the staircase. As a result, he sustained severe head and chest injuries, including brain trauma and skull fractures. After spending over three months in intensive care and undergoing several surgeries, his long-term recovery remains uncertain. He continues to experience partial paralysis and speech impairment.
The FR application, filed by his elder sister (attorney at law Shermila Priyadarshani Silva) on his behalf, sought justice for him and challenged the systemic failures that allowed such an incident to occur.
Exposing systemic failures
Though ragging has been criminalised under the Prohibition of Ragging and Other Forms of Violence in Educational Institutions Act, No. 20 of 1998, the judgment revealed how ineffective enforcement and institutional apathy had allowed such practices to persist. The SC held that the university administration had failed in its duty of care. The event at which the incident occurred had been officially approved but was held in violation of university regulations including alcohol consumption on campus, the programme extending past the permitted time, and lacking effective supervision. This negligence contributed directly to the grievous injuries suffered by the student.
Yet, the Court did not stop at identifying fault. It recognised the deeper, more pervasive issues at hand, namely that ragging in Sri Lankan universities is not merely misconduct, but a deeply embedded culture of abuse, humiliation, and control that targets students based on caste, class, ethnicity, gender, or region.
Institutional inaction and culture of complicity
One of the most powerful aspects of the judgment was its unflinching critique of university officials who turned a blind eye to ragging. The Court emphasised that many academic and non-academic staff either tolerated or were complicit in ragging, allowing the abuse to fester. It cited evidence that ragging could not have continued for so long without the knowledge – and in some cases, silent endorsement – of staff members and student leaders.
The Court observed that, “ragging often targets students based on socioeconomic background, ethnicity, gender, or regional identity, perpetuating existing prejudices within the student community”. The Court further remarked that, “senior students use ragging as a tool to assert dominance, fostering a culture of subservience rather than equality”. The complicity of university officials, it warned, has enabled ragging to, “continue unchecked, reinforcing a cycle of abuse within the university environment”. This culture of fear has led to widespread underreporting. As the Court noted, “many cases stand unreported due to institutional negligence or the victims’ fear of retaliation, a cause for prejudice, or retribution”.
A blueprint for reform
Instead of simply declaring a constitutional violation under Article 12(1) of the Constitution (right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law), the SC took a more transformative approach. It directed the Attorney General to collaborate with all state universities, the UGC, the law enforcement authorities, and the Ministry of Higher Education to draft a comprehensive set of Guidelines to Combat Ragging in Higher Educational Institutions.
These Guidelines, now considered binding Orders of Court, cover an extensive range of reforms. Every university must establish a Victim Support Committee that provides 24/seven hotlines, psychological counselling, legal aid, safe accommodation, and medical support to victims. Institutions are required to conduct transparent, confidential inquiries and take strict disciplinary action against the perpetrators. University officials who fail to act can face penalties, including dismissal. Recognising the rise of cyber-ragging and drug use, the Guidelines also call for digital surveillance, staff training, and strict anti-drug protocols. A compulsory Foundation Course must be conducted for all first-year students to build awareness on human rights, mental health, and the consequences of ragging. Universities are required to enhance surveillance infrastructure, including closed circuit television cameras, security patrols, and controlled hostel access. Student union leaders and university staff are explicitly made responsible for preventing ragging. Failing to report incidents or suppressing complaints will result in sanctions. Lastly, to reduce vulnerability, hostels should be minimised and students be encouraged to find private, university-approved lodging.
A norm shift needed beyond law
While the legal and administrative reforms mandated by the Court are comprehensive, the judgment also emphasised that lasting change requires a transformation in the campus culture. Ragging is often rationalised as a ‘tradition’ or ‘initiation’ that builds camaraderie. In reality, it perpetuates hierarchies, fear, and trauma. As the judgment poignantly stated, “ragging is not merely bullying, but also an institutionalised manifestation of prejudice”, one that “restricts academic access and nurtures abuse under the guise of ‘institutional norms’”. The Court emphasised that enforcement must go hand-in-hand with education and awareness-building to create safer, more inclusive spaces. By mandating not just institutional mechanisms but also psychological support, leadership training, and inclusion-based orientation programs, the Court aims to challenge the toxic norms that underpin ragging.
The way forward
With this judgment, Sri Lanka stands at a crossroads. The SC has laid down the law, but its implementation now depends on the political will of university administrations, the vigilance of the students, and the integrity of the law-enforcement agencies. Universities are required to report back to the Court within six months on the progress made. The burden now lies on them to prove that the era of passive tolerance is over. This case is not just a legal victory – it is a moral reckoning. For decades, Sri Lanka’s promise of free education has been tainted by violence, fear, and exclusion. This judgment is a bold step toward reclaiming that promise, ensuring that every student can walk into a university not with dread, but with dignity.
(The writer is an attorney at law)
………………………………………….
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication