• To begin consultations to formulate guidelines & recomms. on religious/belief freedom 

The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL), following a suo motu inquiry into the alleged infringement of the freedom of religion and right to education in Trincomalee, opined that specific forms of attire, including the attire worn by certain Muslim women and girls that cover their heads, and in some cases, their ears, are protected under Article 14(1)(e) of the Constitution as legitimate forms of religious observance and practice. 

Moreover, discriminating against any citizen on the basis of such attire could amount to an infringement of such a citizen's right to non-discrimination on the grounds of sex and religion. Further, any restriction on such attire must be provided by law, and be necessary for a specific purpose found in Article 15(7).

The incident in question is one in which the General Certificate of Education Advanced Level (A/L) Examination results of around 70 candidates of Zahira College, Trincomalee, had been withheld by the Department of Examinations on the alleged grounds that the said candidates had violated the examination rules with respect to ensuring that their ears were visible during the examination.

With regard to the allegation that the said students had violated the examination rules during the examination, the Department reported that the relevant rule required all candidates to ensure that their ears were visible to enable examination invigilators to assess whether the candidates were using any electronic device to aid them during the examination. The HRCSL noted that the rule in question did not prohibit any particular type of attire, but instead only obliged candidates to ensure that their ears were visible for the necessary assessment to be made. The HRCSL informed the officers of the Department that the candidates in question – all of whom were girls who adhered to Islam – had claimed that they wore a loose transparent head covering that did not impede the visibility of their ears. The HRCSL advised the Department to review this claim and conduct a thorough assessment of whether the attire in question in fact violated any examination rule. It was also pointed out that no other school appeared to have experienced a similar interpretation of the relevant examination rule, thereby suggesting a selective application of the rule to target candidates from this particular school. 

Moreover, the Department was informed that it was reported that only one female invigilator had been assigned to the relevant examination hall despite all the candidates being girls. It was pointed out that this lack of accommodation impacted the rights and freedom of the candidates. The HRCSL recommended that the Department ensures the assignment of adequate numbers of female invigilators to examination halls in the future. 

The officers of the Department undertook to review the interpretation of the relevant examination rule in order to ensure greater consistency and certainty in the application of the rule, and to avoid similar situations during future examinations.

Both the Department and the University Grants Commission reported that the results of the said students had since been released, and that these institutions were taking additional remedial measures to ensure that the said students can manually apply for the re-scrutiny of their examination scripts, and to apply for university entrance. The HRCSL emphasised that no student should be prejudiced by the delay in the release of their results.

The HRCSL has also decided to engage in a consultative process to formulate general guidelines and recommendations on the freedom of religion or belief, and to disseminate the same among State authorities.