Hundreds of innocent dreams have been shattered by the brutal, inhuman, and degrading practice of ragging that continues to plague Sri Lankan universities.
What began historically as informal and relatively harmless initiation rituals has, in the Sri Lankan context, evolved into systematic, abusive, and often violent behaviour, particularly within higher education institutions, mainly universities. A study conducted by the Centre for Gender Equity and Equality of the University Grants Commission (UGC), in collaboration with the United Nations (UN) Children's Fund, in 2022, has revealed alarming statistics on the prevalence of ragging and sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) in Sri Lankan State universities.
According to the report, over 51% of students surveyed experienced verbal harassment, 34.3% endured psychological violence, 23.8% suffered physical abuse, and 16.6% faced sexual harassment as a result of ragging.
In recent decades, the nation has witnessed numerous tragic incidents linked to ragging, prompting public outcry, media attention, and legal reform. Ragging can range from a seemingly mild interaction to severe psychological or physical abuse, at times driving victims to nervous breakdowns or even suicide.
The Prohibition of Ragging and Other Forms of Violence in Educational Institutions Act, No. 20 of 1998 was enacted to curb the widespread practice of ragging by providing clear offences and punishments. Further, the UGC has issued several circulars directing universities to adopt preventive measures. However, ragging still persists in many universities.
Legislative response
In response to the escalating severity of ragging incidents in Sri Lankan educational institutions, the Parliament enacted the Prohibition of Ragging and Other Forms of Violence in Educational Institutions Act. Section 17 of the Act defines ragging broadly to include any act that causes or is likely to cause physical or psychological injury, mental pain, or fear to a student or member of an educational institution. This wide definition ensures that not only overtly violent acts but also mental harassment and intimidation are brought within the scope of the law.
Section 2(1) of the Act provides, inter alia. that any person who commits or participates in ragging, within or outside an educational institution, shall be guilty of an offence under the Act, and, on conviction after a summary trial, shall be liable for a term of rigorous imprisonment not exceeding two years. Section 2(2) of the Act provides that anyone who, in the course of ragging, inflicts sexual harassment or causes grievous hurt on a student or staff member, faces up to 10 years’ of imprisonment upon conviction after a summary trial. Additionally, the court may order the offender to pay compensation, in an amount determined by the court, to the victim for the injuries sustained.
Moreover, Section 3 of the Act recognises criminal intimidation, Section 4 specifically mentions hostage-taking, Section 5 stipulates wrongful detention, Section 6 notes wrongful imprisonment, and Section 7 specifically mentions the forcible occupation of an educational institution and damage to property. The Act prescribes strict punishments including terms of rigorous imprisonment and monetary fines for all ragging related offences, underscoring its zero tolerance stance towards such conduct.
Under Section 8, when a person is convicted of an offence under the Act, the court may, taking into account the gravity of the offence, order that a student be expelled or a staff member be dismissed from the educational institution. Section 9 further tightens enforcement by stipulating that anyone accused of ragging involving sexual harassment or grievous hurt (Section 2[2]) or of hostage-taking (Section 4) is not eligible for bail except by order of a High Court judge, who must consider the Bail Act’s provisions and the seriousness of the offence before granting release.
Additionally, the UGC has issued a series of circulars designed to prevent ragging and ensure timely, effective action against any violations. UGC Circular Number 919, dated 15 January 2010, titled ‘Guidelines to Curb the Menace of Ragging in Universities and Higher Educational Institutes’ lays down preventive measures and clear procedures for addressing gender-related discrimination and the harassment of first-year students, including step-by-step protocols for reporting and investigating such incidents. Circular No. 946, issued on 10 February 2011, then establishes uniform rules for student disciplinary proceedings and the imposition of sanctions.
To implement these mechanisms, the vice-chancellor of a university is empowered on the basis of a formal fact-finding inquiry, to issue an out-of-bounds declaration against any student found guilty of serious misconduct, thereby prohibiting that student from entering the campus or participating in university activities for a specified period as both a preventive and punitive measure.
The UGC has strengthened its anti-ragging and SGBV framework by empowering universities to record disciplinary sanctions such as expulsions and fines in students’ official record books. Circular No. 12/2019 mandates that institutions adopt explicit by-laws prohibiting SGBV, establish clear reporting and disciplinary procedures, and conduct student awareness programmes. It further requires protective measures for witnesses of serious offences, in line with the Assistance to and Protection of Victims of Crime and Witnesses Act, No. 4 of 2015, to ensure their safety and support. Circular No. 04/2020 obliges universities to report all forms of ragging and SGBV-related complaints, with the actions taken, to the UGC, within seven days. Finally, a dedicated complaints portal has been created to streamline the reporting of ragging and SGBV-related incidents.
Article 11 of the Sri Lankan Constitution guarantees freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. This right is non-derogable, meaning that it cannot be suspended under any circumstances. It reflects international human rights standards, such as those in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Violations of Article 11 can be challenged directly before the Supreme Court under Article 126, and the Court has interpreted ‘torture’ broadly to include both physical and mental abuse.
In Priyangani Navaratne and Others vs. Chandrasena, President's Counsel and Justice Mark Damien Hugh Fernando mentioned that ragging is easy to commit but hard to prove, as the victims fear retaliation, and the authorities often avoid involvement. Disciplinary bodies may be pressured into reducing or cancelling punishments. Given this, public interest demands strong, deterrent punishment, not leniency. He emphasised that restoring light penalties would amount to the violation of the victims’ rights.
The failure of the Ragging Act of 1998
The Prohibition of Ragging and Other Forms of Violence in Educational Institutions Act, while well-intentioned, faces significant challenges in implementation. Key drawbacks include underreporting by victims due to fear of retaliation, weak institutional responses where universities hesitate to act decisively, and the lack of clear enforcement mechanisms both within universities and the criminal justice system. The absence of whistleblower protections and preventive frameworks, coupled with poor coordination between stakeholders like the Police and the university authorities, further limits the effectiveness of the Act. Additionally, ragging remains culturally normalised in some university circles, hindering progress. To address these issues, there is a need for stronger enforcement, better victim protection, and a comprehensive preventive approach to eradicate ragging in Sri Lankan universities.
Responsibility of universities as public institutions
As public institutions funded by taxpayers, universities bear a significant legal and moral responsibility to prevent and effectively respond to ragging. This duty stems from constitutional obligations to uphold Fundamental Rights (FR), particularly the right to protection from inhuman treatment (Article 11) and the right to equal protection of the law (Article 12[1]). As State actors, universities may face legal consequences, including FR litigation, if they fail to act. Under the Prohibition of Ragging and Other Forms of Violence in Educational Institutions Act, universities are also legally required to report and address incidents of ragging, implement disciplinary procedures, and foster a safe learning environment. If they fail to do so, it amounts to a violation of the statutory duty. Their accountability extends beyond compliance; as stewards of public funds and public trust, universities must ensure that taxpayer resources support education in a safe, respectful setting. When universities ignore or tolerate ragging, it not only leads to psychological and academic harm but also constitutes a breach of the public trust doctrine, which holds them accountable as trustees of student welfare and equal access to education.
Conclusion
From a legal and institutional perspective, the urgent need to eradicate ragging from Sri Lankan universities cannot be overstated. Ragging is not merely a disciplinary issue — it is a grave violation of FR protected by the Constitution, including the right to dignity, equality, and protection from cruel or degrading treatment. Despite the existence of the Prohibition of Ragging and Other Forms of Violence in Educational Institutions Act, its weak enforcement and the lack of institutional commitment have allowed a culture of fear and silence to persist. As public institutions funded by taxpayers and entrusted with nurturing future generations, universities have a legal duty and moral responsibility to provide a safe, inclusive, and rights-respecting environment. The effective eradication of ragging requires a multi-pronged approach; the robust enforcement of the existing laws, clear institutional protocols, protection for victims and whistleblowers, and sustained educational and preventive efforts. Ensuring the rights of students and preserving public trust necessitate an uncompromising stance against all forms of ragging. Accordingly, its complete eradication should be a national priority of the Government.
(The writers are Law Lecturers at the University of Colombo)
………………………………………………………………..
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication