failure to prevent ragging in violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioners, particularly under Article 12(1) of the Sri Lankan Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality and equal protection of the law.

 

SUPREME COURT

Case Title: Jayasingha Arachchige Shermila Priyadarshani Silva and Jayasingha Arachchige Pasindu Hirushan Silva v. University Grants Commission and Others

Case No: SC FR Application No: 216/2020

Court: Supreme Court of Sri Lanka

Judges: Justice A.L. Shiran Gooneratne, Justice K. Priyantha Fernando, Justice Sobhitha Rajakaruna

Date Argued: 27/03/2025

Date Decided: 09/07/2025

 

Factual Background:

The petitioners, Jayasingha Arachchige Shermila Priyadarshani Silva (first petitioner) and her brother, Jayasingha Arachchige Pasindu Hirushan Silva (second petitioner), filed an application before the Supreme Court alleging a severe incident of ragging that occurred on 06/03/2020. The second petitioner, a first-year student at the University of Sri Jayewardenepura, was injured during a social event organized by senior students. The injury, caused by a large backhoe tyre being rolled down a staircase, led to grievous head and chest injuries, including skull fractures, brain trauma, retrograde amnesia, and partial paralysis.

Following the incident, the second petitioner was hospitalized for intensive care, undergoing several surgeries and prolonged rehabilitation. The petition seeks justice not only for the injuries sustained but also for systemic reform within the university system to prevent future ragging incidents.

 

Legal Issues:

Whether the University Grants Commission (UGC) and the University of Sri Jayewardenepura (Respondents) are liable for failing to prevent ragging in violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioners, particularly under Article 12(1) of the Sri Lankan Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality and equal protection of the law.

 

The responsibility of the university administration to ensure a safe, ragging-free environment despite granting permissions for social events and failing to enforce stipulated conditions.

 

The failure of law enforcement and institutional bodies to effectively address and prevent ragging, leading to physical and psychological harm to students.

 

Proceedings and Arguments:

The petitioners assert that despite ragging being prohibited by law, it remains a prevalent issue in Sri Lankan universities. The first petitioner, representing her injured brother, advocates for systemic changes to eradicate ragging and ensure accountability. They argue that the incident was exacerbated by the negligence of the university administration in failing to enforce event regulations, allowing alcohol on campus, and permitting the event to continue past the stipulated time.

 

The University Grants Commission (UGC) and various university representatives, including Vice Chancellors, submitted reports on anti-ragging measures. However, the Court observed inconsistencies in their enforcement and found that despite existing laws and circulars, ragging continues unabated, often due to institutional negligence and lack of effective oversight.

 

Decision:

The Supreme Court, while acknowledging the ongoing legal proceedings regarding the ragging incident at the Magistrate’s Court, held that the petitioners' case raised broader constitutional issues regarding the systemic failure to prevent ragging in universities. The Court emphasized the urgent need for comprehensive reforms, including better enforcement of anti-ragging policies and the introduction of guidelines to ensure the safety and well-being of university students.

 

The Court directed the Attorney General to coordinate with the UGC and relevant law enforcement agencies to draft comprehensive anti-ragging guidelines, which were to be submitted to the Court for approval. Additionally, the Court ordered that the Vice Chancellors of all universities under the UGC submit detailed reports on the measures in place to combat ragging.

 Guidelines and Orders:

The Court's decision included the formulation of the "Guidelines to Combat Ragging in Higher Educational Institutions," which were to be enforced by all universities. These guidelines emphasized the creation of Victim Support Committees, strict disciplinary measures against offenders, the implementation of a zero-tolerance policy towards ragging, and the protection of victims from retaliation. The guidelines also mandated the establishment of internal disciplinary mechanisms, victim support systems, and anti-ragging training for students and staff.

 

Conclusion:

The Court refrained from issuing a declaration on the violation of the petitioners' rights under Article 12(1) of the Constitution but focused on systemic reforms to prevent future incidents of ragging. It insisted on strict compliance with the newly issued guidelines and emphasized that all universities must take immediate steps to implement these measures and report back to the Court on progress within six months.

READ JUDGMENT CLICK