Ragging: Defiling the cornerstones of free education

Due to widespread ragging incidents, public-funded universities have become sites for violence rather than institutions for academic progression

• The recent Supreme Court ruling, directing strict action against ragging in State universities, heralds a new chapter in the State university landscape
• The fundamental rights petition urged ‘institutional reforms and heightened oversight to prevent future instances of ragging that could disrupt the lives of young students seeking to pursue higher education’
• The implementation of existing laws, policies and relief measures aimed at preventing ragging is inconsistent and ineffective

By Randima Attygalle

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices A.L. Shiran Gooneratne, K. Priyantha Fernando and Sobhitha Rajakaruna, directed the University Grants Commission (UGC) and other relevant authorities last Wednesday, to strictly enforce the guidelines formulated to combat ragging in State universities. The court also instructed the Minister of Education and Higher Education to provide the necessary financial and technical support and facilities for the implementation of the said guidelines. 

In the event of ‘systematic failures in regulatory mechanisms’ to curb ragging, the court ordered effective enforcement of all existing laws and institutional policies to curb ragging which has led to a good number of students abandoning their university education, leaving several more disabled and in extreme cases, committing suicide.

The ruling, which is an eye opener for both watchdogs of the higher education as well as students who nurture a ragging culture, was delivered while considering a fundamental rights petition filed by Pasindu Hirushan de Silva, who suffered severe head and chest trauma after being stuck by a rolling backhoe tyre during a social event organised by the senior students to mark the conclusion of the ‘ragging period’ for first-year students at the University of Sri Jayewardenepura in March 2020. 

Following the incident, Pasindu was immediately rushed to Colombo South Teaching Hospital and, due to the gravity of his injuries, he was later transferred to the National Hospital, Colombo. He remained in intensive care for over three months, undergoing multiple surgeries to address haemorrhage and fractures. His recovery required extensive physiotherapy, including chest therapy, limb rehabilitation, speech therapy, and occupational therapy. As mentioned in the factual background of the judgment, despite these medical interventions, the extent of his long-term recovery remains uncertain, raising concerns about his ability to resume a normal life. 

Due to the serious injuries sustained on the night of the incident, Pasindu was incapable of personally signing the petition; therefore, was compelled to prefer it through his elder sister, Shermila Priyadarshani Silva, a lawyer by profession. The petitioners seeking ‘judicial intervention to ensure accountability and justice’, emphasised that the case ‘not only concerns the personal grievances of the 2nd Petitioner (Pasindu), but also has broader implications for university students at large’. The petition urged ‘institutional reforms and heightened oversight to prevent future instances of ragging that could disrupt the lives of young students seeking to pursue higher education.’

Abuse under the guise of tradition

The Supreme Court upheld that despite the existence of legal frameworks, various policies, regulatory mechanisms and relief measures aimed at preventing ragging local universities, their implementation remains inconsistent and ineffective. Condemning the ‘deeply ingrained practice’ of ragging within the ‘university culture’, the court underscored that it ‘corrupts the core intent of free education, restricting academic access and nurturing abuse under the guise of ‘institutional norms’. The decisive judgement prompts all stakeholders concerning the higher education in the country to revisit this social menace framed as ‘tradition’ to be resulting in life-long psychological scars. It also reminds that ragging, ‘is not merely bullying, but also an institutionalised manifestation of prejudice, preventing students from equal opportunities, fostering discrimination, and enabling systemic injustices.’ 

Although Sri Lanka invests heavily in higher education, as the recent ruling underlines, due to widespread ragging incidents, public-funded universities have become sites for violence rather than institutions for academic progression. The ruling also brings to light that a significant number of ragging cases go unreported due to fear of reprisal, social stigma, and lack of trust in institutional authorities. 

The ugly chronicle

The recent most case of ragging-induced tragedy here at home was recorded in April this year. A second-year undergraduate at the Department of Engineering Technology from the Sabaragamuwa University took his own life unable to withstand abuse at the hands of his senior students. Rewinding country’s ugly chronicle of ragging, the first red flag was the brutal ragging of trainee teachers at the Vidyalankara University (present University of Kelaniya) in 1974. The incident led to the V.W. Kularatne Commission and the expulsion of 12 students. Barely a year later, Rupa Rathnaseeli, a first-year student from the Peradeniya University’s Agriculture Faculty, jumped from the second floor of the campus hostel to escape inhuman physical ragging which left her paralysed for life. Later she committed suicide in 2002. 

In 1997, S. Varapragash, an Engineering student of University of Peradeniya, died from a kidney failure following severe ragging by senior students. In the same year Kelum Thushara Wijetunge, a first-year student at the Hardy Technical Institute in Ampara also died from a kidney failure after he was forced to do vigorous exercises and drink excessive quantities of liquor. In 2002, Samantha Vithanage, a third year Management student from the University of Sri Jayewardenepura, who pioneered an anti-ragging campaign, was killed during a meeting. 

A study done in 2022 on Prevalence of Ragging and Sexual and Gender Based Violence (SGBV) in Sri Lankan State Universities, initiated by the Centre for Gender Equity and Equality of the University Grants Commission in partnership with UNICEF, has revealed the extent and the negative consequences of these harmful practices. Ragging in the early years had been perceived as a tool to ‘equalise’ all new entrants for which students used certain acts to depict ‘humour and pranks’ that seems to have got institutionalised in the Sri Lankan State University System, documents the report. 

‘Although the severity of ragging was mild at the beginning gradually it increased resulting in some victims being permanently crippled or some even attempting to commit suicide. Specially, female students are severely traumatised by the ragging experience, as many are unable to cope with the vulgarity, humiliation, sadism, obscene language, mental torture and cruelty perpetrated on them.’ Another study conducted at the University of Jaffna in 2022 revealed that nearly 59% of students had experienced ragging in some form; verbal, emotional, or physical. 

Forging a culture of equality

As several representatives from State universities collective endorse, ragging fosters a culture of servility, fear and dominance as opposed to equality which the Sri Lankan free education system strives to champion. “Universities are grounds to foster equality, mutual respect and zero-discrimination but tragically ours are turning into grounds of hostility and discrimination. This culture should end and this calls for an overhaul shift in thinking and behaviour among students,” a senior professor from a state university remarked.

The recent Supreme Court ruling which heralds a new chapter in State university landscape, mandates all State universities to adopt wide-ranging safety measures, including Victim Support Committees, surveillance and safety measures, revised Disciplinary Bylaws and confidential reporting systems and Foundation and Mentoring Programs. The case is to be recalled in January 2026 to review the progress made in implementing the court’s orders.