- 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 Supreme Court may intervene to determine the enforcement of anti-ragging guidelines if the University Grants Commission (UGC) or universities fail to implement the newly proposed measures aimed at eliminating ragging in state universities, according to a senior official from the Attorney General’s Department.
Recently, the Attorney General’s Department submitted a set of draft guidelines to the Supreme Court, with the goal of strengthening anti-ragging efforts across universities. The guidelines were presented to a three-member Supreme Court bench, which included Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya, along with Justices Shiran Gunaratne and Priyantha Fernando.
These guidelines are still in draft form and have not yet been finalized, sources reveal. The court is expected to make a decision on the enforcement mechanism at a later date, while universities have been asked to review and respond to the proposals.
The draft guidelines were compiled following extensive consultations with key stakeholders, including university vice-chancellors, the UGC, the Ministry of Higher Education, and the police. Feedback from these stakeholders shaped the content of the proposed guidelines. Universities and other stakeholders are now in the process of reviewing the draft and have been requested to submit their final comments before the Attorney General files the final version in court.
A senior lawyer from the Attorney General’s Department clarified that the guidelines do not introduce new legal or disciplinary actions but rather aim to reinforce existing UGC disciplinary procedures. “There are no new penalties for different types of ragging, but strict disciplinary action against staff who fail to act has been emphasised,” the lawyer stated.
The guidelines also recognize the growing importance of cyberspace and social media as platforms for ragging, which were not covered under the original 1998 anti-ragging law. “While the 1998 Act didn’t consider cyberspace, the guidelines now include online harassment as a form of ragging, which is covered under the existing legal definition,” the source explained.
The court’s involvement is seen as crucial in determining enforcement if the UGC or universities are unable to uphold these guidelines. The draft includes provisions for vice-chancellors to lodge complaints with the Inspector General of Police (IGP) regarding non-compliance by relevant police officers, with a copy forwarded to the Attorney General.
“As we don’t have direct disciplinary authority over universities, the court will decide on enforcement if the UGC or universities fail to implement the guidelines,” the official added.
The guidelines also propose the establishment of victim support committees at each university to assist students affected by ragging and to ensure a robust internal disciplinary process. A central victim support committee has also been suggested to help universities that lack the resources to address ragging incidents effectively.
Although an online portal introduced by the UGC for reporting ragging already exists, students remain reluctant to use it, often due to external pressures. The proposed guidelines aim to enhance support for victims, encouraging them to file complaints and withstand any pressure to withdraw them.
The Supreme Court is expected to provide universities with a reasonable timeframe to implement these measures, such as establishing victim support systems and disciplinary mechanisms.
In conclusion, these new guidelines seek to bolster the existing legal framework, offering a comprehensive approach to combating ragging while ensuring that victims have the support they need to come forward. The recognition of cyberspace as a venue for ragging marks a significant step forward in modernizing the anti-ragging laws in Sri Lanka.
