- Draft guidelines submitted to SC
- Collaboration with unis, stakeholders
- Cyberspace, social media recognised in anti-ragging laws
- Reinforcing existing legal framework
- Support systems for victims of ragging
The court will decide on the enforcement mechanisms if the University Grants Commission (UGC) or universities fail to implement guidelines aimed at eliminating ragging in State universities, according to a senior official of the Attorney General’s Department.
The department recently submitted a series of draft guidelines to the Supreme Court aimed at eliminating ragging in State universities.
This was presented to a three-member Supreme Court (SC) bench consisting of Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya and Justices Shiran Gunaratne and Priyantha Fernando.
The guidelines are still in draft form and have not been finalised, The Sunday Morning learns.
The court is expected to make a decision on the next steps at a future date and universities have been asked to respond to the proposals.
This draft was compiled after the Attorney General convened a meeting with key stakeholders, including vice chancellors, the UGC, the Ministry of Higher Education, and the Police to gather feedback and insights, which shaped it.
The next step involves universities and other stakeholders reviewing the draft and submitting their final comments.
This process began in early July, when the first version of the draft was created based on recommendations from the vice chancellors.
Although the core principles have the consensus of all universities, they have been asked to provide feedback on possible additions or amendments to the draft and have been given a deadline to submit their comments to the Attorney General, who will then file the final draft in court.
A senior lawyer attached to the Attorney General’s Department noted that these guidelines did not introduce new legal or disciplinary actions but rather reinforced existing UGC disciplinary procedures.
“This doesn’t introduce new penalties for different types of ragging but emphasises strict disciplinary action against staff for failing to act. That’s the only new thing,” the lawyer said.
The lawyer further clarified: “These guidelines don’t propose new forms of punishment for specific types of ragging. The existing laws already cover those areas and the UGC’s 2011 guidelines are still in effect. These proposals are intended to support and improve the enforcement of those laws.”
According to the source, the Attorney General’s Department will not be directly involved in implementing these guidelines in universities. However, the guidelines include provisions that allow vice chancellors to make a complaint against the relevant Police officers to the IGP with a copy to the Attorney General.
“As we are not a disciplinary authority over universities, we cannot intervene directly. The court will need to decide on the enforcement mechanisms if the UGC or universities fail to implement the guidelines,” the source said.
The source also emphasised the need for time to implement these guidelines, stating: “It wouldn’t be fair to expect immediate implementation, especially for things like victim support committees and accommodations. The court may provide universities with a reasonable timeframe to start putting these measures in place.”
Despite the existing facilities, students remain reluctant to report ragging incidents, the source said.
“There is already an online portal introduced by the UGC for reporting ragging, but the challenge is getting students to file complaints. Many are hesitant due to external pressures or influence,” the source explained.
“These guidelines aim to give victims more support and protection, encouraging them to maintain their complaints and stand against any pressure to withdraw them. That’s the core purpose of this framework.”
When asked how the guidelines differed from the existing legal framework, the source said: “These guidelines don’t differ from the existing laws but are meant to complement them. They strengthen the implementation of the current framework.”
The source also noted that the guidelines extended the definition of ragging to include online harassment: “While the 1998 act did not consider cyberspace, the guidelines now recognise that ragging can occur on social media and in online spaces and these incidents fall under the existing legal definition of ragging.”
When asked if this covered all forms of harassment or bullying in universities beyond ragging, the source said: “We have confined the term ‘ragging’ to what is already being found in the act in the law. There was no social media in 1998. The law doesn’t say that it has to happen in a particular place or physical space. We have now acknowledged that cyberspace and social media fall within the legal definition of the existing definition of ragging.”
The draft guidelines aim to combat ragging at State universities in Sri Lanka through several key measures. They propose establishing victim support committees at each university to assist affected students, while also creating an effective internal disciplinary inquiry mechanism to ensure compliance with existing UGC guidelines on student discipline.
Additionally, a central victim support committee has been suggested to provide resources to universities lacking support for handling ragging incidents. Each university is required to form its own anti-ragging committee to monitor compliance and enforce strict disciplinary action against individuals who fail to report incidents.
The guidelines emphasise the importance of counselling and rehabilitation for accused students, addressing substance abuse issues among the student population. Furthermore, they call for increased security measures, such as more proctors and surveillance systems, to enhance student safety.
The guidelines also include proposals for leadership training, mentorship programmes, and a victim support fund to assist severely affected students.
Overall, these measures are designed to create a safer university environment and raise awareness of student rights and protections under the new framework.
Speaking to The Sunday Morning, UGC Chairman Prof. Sampath Amaratunge outlined the current progress of the guidelines: “We had a couple of meetings and the guidelines were submitted to the Supreme Court, which directed that they be distributed among all vice chancellors to evaluate whether they are achievable and to identify any practical difficulties.
“We have already distributed the guidelines and are now waiting for comments. Once the vice chancellors finalise their views, the UGC will discuss these and submit them to the Attorney General, who will then present the finalised version to the Supreme Court. Each vice chancellor has a team working on this matter, including proctors, student counsellors, wardens, and even security personnel. They will likely offer their own suggestions, which we will consider alongside our own input before submitting the final version soon. It won’t take much time.”
From the UGC’s perspective, the guidelines proposed by the Attorney General are both effective and feasible. “These guidelines are very important, especially coming from the Supreme Court, which adds significant weight. This is timely and crucial because once these guidelines are implemented, they will effectively become part of the country’s legal framework.”
Highlighting issues with the current Anti-Ragging Act, Prof. Amaratunge said: “Even though we already have the Anti-Ragging Act, if someone has committed an offence under that law, it is quite serious. You can’t simply avoid the university or the courts. But the issue we face is that students are often reluctant to file a complaint at a Police station. Without a complaint, there’s no investigation. Even when incidents occur, students are hesitant to come forward because they fear being victimised later on.
“After these guidelines are issued, all vice chancellors and their teams – those working with the students – must talk to the students and engage in discussions to explain the guidelines. Issuing guidelines alone is not enough. We all have a huge responsibility to ensure that the meaning of every word and sentence in these guidelines is communicated clearly to the students.”
Prof. Amaratunge also noted that while ragging incidents within universities had significantly decreased, concerns remained regarding off-campus locations such as hostels and boarding houses.
“At present, we have no reports of ragging incidents. However, most of the complaints we receive now concern hostel rooms and boarding houses. We don’t have direct access to those places, which is something we are concerned about. Vice chancellors have already provided feedback, which is being used to form these new guidelines.”
Discussing the practical challenges of implementing the guidelines, Prof. Amaratunge highlighted potential resource and funding constraints faced by universities. “As for resources and funds, considering the facilities available, some aspects of these guidelines may be difficult to implement. For instance, in a large hostel that accommodates 2,000 students, if only 1,200 students are in the current batch, we can’t reserve that space exclusively for them. Other students also need accommodation, so these are some of the practical difficulties we face.”
He also emphasised the limitations of the UGC’s role in directly addressing ragging incidents, given the autonomy of universities in disciplinary matters. “Although the UGC is the regulator, universities also have significant autonomy. The UGC cannot go to individual universities and identify students involved in ragging, nor do we have the authority to punish those responsible. That power rests with the university councils. Our role is to create regulations, enact laws, and work with universities to ensure they are enforced.”
When asked what specific steps the UGC would take to ensure that all universities strictly followed the guidelines, Prof. Amaratunge said: “We need to follow up on this. If an authority doesn’t strictly follow the guidelines, those are the places we will monitor closely. That is the responsibility of the UGC.”