Supreme Court’s Bold Move to End University Ragging
Photo courtesy of Ceylon Independent
On July 9, 2025 the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka delivered a landmark judgment in that may finally offer hope to thousands of young students threatened by the menace of ragging in state universities in the country. This fundamental rights 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 organized “welcome” event in March 2020.
Far from a mere isolated incident, the case laid bare the entrenched culture of violence and impunity within higher education institutions. The Supreme Court, recognizing the institutional neglect and the inadequacy of 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, was a student who had just enrolled at the Faculty of Management Studies and Commerce in the University of Jayewardenepura. 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 March 6, 2020 during a celebration organized 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 crashed into Pasindu, 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 fundamental rights application filed by his elder sister on his behalf sought justice for Pasindu and challenged the systemic failures that allowed such an incident to occur.
Exposing systemic failures
Although ragging has been criminalized 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 Supreme Court 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, program 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 recognized the deeper, more pervasive issues at hand namely, that ragging in 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 emphasized 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), the Supreme Court took a more transformative approach. It directed the Attorney General to collaborate with all state universities, the University Grants Commission (UGC), 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 24/7 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 perpetrators. University officials who fail to act can face penalties, including dismissal. Recognizing 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 CCTV, 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. To reduce vulnerability, hostels should be minimized and students encouraged to find private, university approved lodging.
A shift needed beyond law
While the legal and administrative reforms mandated by the court are comprehensive, the judgment also emphasized that lasting change requires a transformation in campus culture. Ragging is often rationalized 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 institutionalized manifestation of prejudice,” one that “restricts academic access and nurtures abuse under the guise of ‘institutional norms’.” The court emphasized 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.
Way forward
With this judgment, Sri Lanka stands at a crossroads. The Supreme Court has laid down the law but its implementation now depends on the political will of university administrations, the vigilance of students and the integrity of 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.
