Ragging in Indian Colleges
Ragging has long been a controversial practice in India, particularly within the realms of higher education, including medical and engineering colleges. Historically viewed by some as a rite of passage or a tradition, ragging has evolved into a serious concern for educational institutions and students alike. The phenomenon encompasses a range of behaviors that can include psychological torment, physical intimidation, and social ostracization. Such acts have been increasingly scrutinized due to the alarming rise in reports highlighting the severe repercussions faced by victims, including injury and psychological trauma.
In response to the growing outcry against ragging, the Indian government has enacted stringent laws that categorize and penalize such practices. At the national level, ragging is defined broadly, encompassing any form of physical or mental abuse aimed at individuals based on various demographic factors. This includes not just the obvious physical assaults, but also more insidious forms of bullying that exploit societal divisions. The Supreme Court of India has taken definitive action, leading to the establishment of the National Anti-Ragging Helpline aimed at addressing incidents of ragging and offering support to affected students.
Reports from organizations monitoring higher education institutions paint a grim picture of the extent of ragging. A significant report from 2007 cited numerous cases of physical injuries and, most tragically, ten fatalities attributed to the act. These statistics are distressing and reflect a troubling culture in many Indian colleges, where ragging can manifest in ways that violate basic human rights. Media outlets have compared the experiences of victims to those of detainees in notorious facilities, emphasizing the brutality and humiliation they endure. Moreover, while the focus is often on medical colleges, the phenomenon is widespread across various educational settings, including engineering colleges and hostels, where the exploitation of power dynamics can create a toxic environment.
In response to the need for systemic change, various non-governmental organizations, like Society Against Violence in Education (SAVE), advocate against the prevalence of ragging in academic institutions. They highlight the necessity for raising awareness about the psychological and physical toll ragging can have on students, as well as the importance of fostering a safer and more inclusive environment within educational institutes. The battle against ragging is ongoing, and it requires collective efforts from government bodies, educational establishments, and student communities to eradicate this detrimental tradition and ensure every student can pursue their education without fear of abuse or discrimination.
Overview of the National Anti-Ragging Helpline
In response to escalating incidents of ragging in educational institutions, the Supreme Court of India mandated the establishment of the National Anti-Ragging Helpline, which began operations in June 2009. This initiative aims to provide a safe and supportive channel for students to report incidents of ragging. The helpline facilitates immediate action by notifying both the head of the institution and local police authorities about complaints received. This dual response is critical in ensuring that cases of ragging are addressed not only at the institutional level but also through legal channels when necessary.
Features and Importance of the Helpline
One of the most significant features of the helpline is the provision for anonymous complaints, which allows victims to report incidents without fear of retaliation or further harassment from perpetrators. This aspect is particularly crucial due to the nature of ragging, where victims often find themselves in a vulnerable position, remaining close to those who may seek revenge after a complaint is made. The tragic case of Aman Kachroo, a victim of ragging who lost his life after reporting the abuse, underscores the necessity of such policies. The ability to file anonymous complaints serves as a vital protection for students, enabling them to seek help without the fear of repercussions.
Legal Framework and Institutional Responsibilities
According to the University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations, any college that receives a ragging complaint involving violence, physical abuse, sexual harassment, or confinement is mandated to file a First Information Report (F.I.R.) with the police within a stipulated time frame. The head of the institution is responsible for ensuring that this report is filed within 24 hours of receiving the complaint. Failure to comply with these regulations can lead to serious legal repercussions, as evidenced by a case in 2013 where officials from a prestigious college in Delhi were charged for neglecting this duty. This legal framework aims to hold institutions accountable and enforce a zero-tolerance policy towards ragging.
Impact and Effectiveness of the Helpline
Data from the National Anti-Ragging Helpline suggest that the initiative has played a significant role in improving safety and support for students in educational environments. The process of forwarding complaints to the UGC for further action against non-compliant institutions has been instrumental in creating accountability. By doing so, the helpline not only ensures that immediate action is taken in response to individual complaints but also works towards fostering a broader cultural change in colleges regarding attitudes toward ragging. The ongoing efforts to enhance awareness and application of anti-ragging policies are essential in building an educational landscape where all students feel secure and are free to pursue their studies without fear of harassment.
Helpline Performance Concerns
A significant issue surrounding the helpline's effectiveness has emerged due to its extremely low complaint registration rate. From November 2012 to January 2013, the toll-free helpline, available at 1800-180-5522, encountered an impressive volume of calls, totaling 165,297. However, this high engagement resulted in a mere 190 registered complaints, representing an astonishingly low conversion rate of only 0.1%. This discrepancy raised eyebrows among stakeholders concerning the helpline's functionality and utility.
In defense of its performance, the helpline administration attributed the overwhelming majority of incoming calls to inquiries rather than formal complaints. Many of the individuals reaching out to the helpline were primarily checking its operational status or protocol rather than seeking to report issues. Furthermore, it was noted that some students opted not to proceed with their complaints after initially expressing concerns, which further contributed to the low registration figures. Additionally, the helpline noted that a portion of the calls were deemed as hoaxes, likely stemming from users taking advantage of the toll-free nature of the service.
The implications of such a low complaint registration rate indicate potential barriers to effective communication and support for those who may truly need assistance. Analyzing call trends could be vital in improving the helpline's outreach and support mechanisms. Efforts to incentivize genuine complaints, raise awareness about the services provided, and educate callers on the importance of reporting legitimate grievances could lead to enhanced performance and better service for the community. Understanding the motivation behind calls and addressing the factors discouraging complaint registration may be essential for the helpline's future efficacy and reputation.
Legislation Against Ragging in Tamil Nadu
In 1997, Tamil Nadu became a pioneer in addressing the issue of ragging by enacting specific laws aimed at eradicating this harmful practice in educational institutions. These initial regulations served as a critical first step towards creating a safer environment for students, particularly for newcomers who often face intimidation and abuse during their transition to college life. The measures outlined in the legislation sought to define ragging, establish penalties, and mandate institutions to implement preventive actions to discourage such behavior.
The anti-ragging movement in India gained significant momentum following a landmark judgement from the Supreme Court of India in May 2001. This ruling came in response to a Public Interest Litigation filed by Vishwa Jagriti Mission, an organization founded by Sudhanshu Ji Maharaj, which sought to address the grave concerns surrounding ragging and its impact on students' physical and mental well-being. The judgement underscored the court's recognition of ragging as a serious offense and called upon educational institutions to take a proactive stance against it. The Supreme Court mandated that institutions must establish comprehensive anti-ragging committees and put in place mechanisms for reporting incidents, thereby reinforcing the importance of creating a supportive educational atmosphere.
In addition to legislative measures, educational institutions across India have adopted various initiatives to combat ragging, including awareness campaigns, sensitization programs, and workshops aimed at fostering a culture of respect and inclusivity. Many colleges and universities now have strict codes of conduct that explicitly prohibit ragging, along with mechanisms that allow victims to report incidents without fear of retaliation. The combined efforts of legislation, judicial intervention, and proactive institutional policies have played a crucial role in curbing ragging practices, ensuring that students can pursue their education in a safe and nurturing environment.
Overview of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1999
The Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1999 was established with the clear objective of eliminating ragging from educational institutions within the state. By defining ragging as acts that can inflict physical or psychological harm or evoke feelings of fear or shame in students, the act addresses a spectrum of behaviors, including teasing, threatening, and coercive actions. Such definitions underscore the act’s intent to provide a secure and supportive environment conducive to education, where every student can thrive without the threat of harassment or violence.
Legal Framework and Consequences
Section 4 of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act stipulates severe penalties for those who engage in or support ragging activities. Offenders can face imprisonment for up to two years and fines that can reach as high as ten thousand rupees. Moreover, the act carries repercussions beyond legal punishment; students convicted under this law risk expulsion from their current educational institutions and are effectively banned from enrolling in any other institution for a period of five years. This comprehensive approach to penalizing ragging is intended to act as a strong deterrent, signaling that such behavior will not be tolerated within the state's educational framework.
The act also delineates the responsibilities of educational institutions in addressing ragging incidents. Institutions are required to conduct prompt investigations into any allegations of ragging. If an institution fails to comply, particularly in cases where leadership neglects their obligations, Section 7 imposes equivalent consequences upon institutional heads, equating their accountability to that of the students involved. This provision reinforces the importance of institutional responsibility in fostering a culture of safety and respect.
Impact and Notable Cases
Since its enactment, the Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act has been invoked in several high-profile cases, demonstrating both the challenges and effectiveness of anti-ragging measures. One significant incident involved the suicide of Payal Tadvi, a medical student whose tragic death highlighted the pervasive issue of ragging intertwined with caste-based discrimination. The involvement of senior students charged under multiple laws, including the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, illustrates the serious ramifications of ragging and the need for comprehensive investigations into such incidents.
Despite occasional progress, challenges persist in effectively addressing and proving allegations of ragging. For instance, since 2018, only one of several accusations at the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences was substantiated, indicating potential issues with investigation protocols or reporting concerns. Furthermore, responses to Tadvi's suicide prompted renewed calls to amend the existing law, particularly to incorporate explicit mentions of caste discrimination, which the original legislation lacks.
Cases such as the 2010 arrest of 18 students at the Seth GS Medical College and the 2015 arrest of L.K. Kshirsagar, the principal of the Maharashtra Institute of Technology’s College of Engineering, exemplify the need for vigilance and adherence to anti-ragging policies. These events underscore an ongoing dialogue regarding the efficacy of current measures and whether they sufficiently address the complexities of ragging in contemporary educational contexts. Thus, while the Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act is a robust framework for combating harassment in schools, continuous evaluation and action are necessary to address not only the legality of ragging but also its sociocultural dimensions.
Supreme Court Intervention on Ragging
The Indian Supreme Court has asserted a decisive role in the fight against ragging in educational institutions. Responding to the alarming incidents of ragging, the court directed the Ministry of Human Resources Development (MHRD) in 2006 to establish a dedicated panel tasked with developing comprehensive guidelines aimed at curbing this pervasive issue. This decision highlighted the seriousness with which the judicial system views ragging, labeling it as a significant problem that requires immediate and systematic intervention.
To fulfill the Supreme Court's directive, the MHRD appointed a seven-member committee led by Dr. R. K. Raghavan, a former Chief of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The committee, known as the Raghavan Committee, thoroughly investigated the roots of ragging and its various manifestations within academic environments. In May 2007, the committee submitted its report, which recommended that ragging be classified as a distinct offense under the Indian Penal Code, thereby making it subject to specific legal ramifications.
In an interim order on May 16, 2007, the Supreme Court mandated that educational institutions must lodge official First Information Reports (FIRs) with law enforcement whenever a complaint of ragging is reported. This directive was crucial as it ensured that such incidents would be subjected to the rigors of the legal system, rather than being handled solely by the institutions' internal mechanisms, which may lack the necessary impartiality or rigor. Dr. Raghavan welcomed this judgment by stating that there were signs of a genuine commitment to implementing effective measures against ragging in colleges, marking a pivotal moment in the quest to eradicate this malpractice.
Additionally, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of transparency and accountability by instructing all higher education institutions to include a detailed record of ragging incidents in their admission brochures and prospectuses. This requirement serves not only as a warning to prospective students but also as a commitment by educational institutions to foster a safer and more respectful academic environment. By taking these steps, the Supreme Court has reinforced the notion that ragging is a serious offense that must be confronted with legal and institutional support. The ongoing efforts and reforms in response to these directives signal a turning point in how ragging is addressed in Indian education.
UGC Regulation of 2009
In response to the tragic death of Aman Kachroo in 2009, the University Grants Commission (UGC) took significant steps to combat the pervasive issue of ragging in higher education institutions in India. The regulations established a framework to address this critical concern and mandated that all colleges implement proactive measures to prevent ragging. These measures include housing first-year students separately from seniors in designated hostels, conducting surprise late-night inspections by specialized anti-ragging squads, and requiring senior students and their parents to submit notarized affidavits. These affidavits serve as a formal agreement committing them not to engage in any form of ragging.
Furthering its commitment to eradicating ragging, the UGC made crucial amendments to the initial regulations. One of the primary changes was the removal of the requirement for affidavit verification by an oath commissioner. This adjustment streamlines the process, making it more accessible for students and their families. Additionally, the scope of what constitutes ragging was expanded in the updated definition. It now encompasses any act of physical or mental abuse directed at another student, whether they are freshmen or otherwise. This includes bullying, harassment, and exclusion based on various factors, such as color, race, religion, caste, ethnicity, gender identity (including transgender status), sexual orientation, appearances, nationality, regional origins, linguistic identity, and even socio-economic background.
The UGC's regulations are a significant stride toward creating a safer and more inclusive educational environment. By reinforcing the responsibilities of institutions to take active and preventive measures against ragging, the UGC aims to foster a culture of respect and dignity among students. Institutions are now required to adopt comprehensive anti-ragging policies that not only comply with the UGC guidelines but also actively promote awareness among students about the harmful effects of ragging. This emphasis on education and awareness is essential for cultivating an environment that discourages harassment and supports students’ mental and emotional well-being. Overall, the 2009 UGC Regulations represent a landmark development in the ongoing battle against ragging in India's educational landscape, emphasizing the need for accountability and proactive measures.
Emergence of the Anti-Ragging Movement in India
The issue of ragging in educational institutions across India has become increasingly alarming over the years. This has led to the rise of a spontaneous anti-ragging movement, driven largely by a collective effort from various voluntary organizations. These organizations not only advocate for public awareness regarding the severe implications of ragging but also provide much-needed support to the victims. They work tirelessly to ensure that students feel safe and secure in their academic environments, fostering a culture of respect and dignity.
Several prominent online platforms have emerged as significant players in this movement. Groups such as the Coalition to Uproot Ragging from Education (CURE), Stopragging, and the No Ragging Foundation serve as essential resources for combating this pervasive issue. The No Ragging Foundation has taken a significant step forward by transforming into a comprehensive non-governmental organization (NGO), formally registered as the Society Against Violence in Education (SAVE). This landmark initiative represents India’s first registered anti-ragging nonprofit organization, signifying substantial progress in the fight against such practices in educational settings.
The role of the media has been pivotal in shedding light on the rampant cases of ragging and the often-lackadaisical response from educational institutions. Investigative reports have exposed the plight of many victims and highlighted the indifference displayed by various authorities tasked with curbing such activities. In response to the urgent need for accountability, the Supreme Court of India issued an interim judgment mandating that institutions exhibiting negligence in addressing ragging may be subject to repercussions. This judicial oversight aims not only to protect students but also to encourage educational institutions to adopt stricter measures against ragging, thereby fostering a safer and more supportive academic environment for all.
Continued advocacy and public sentiment surrounding the anti-ragging movement underscore the importance of addressing this societal issue. Efforts from grassroots organizations, coupled with judicial and media support, have the potential to instigate substantial changes in educational practices and policies aimed at eradicating ragging from India's academic landscape. It is a collective responsibility that encompasses students, educators, and lawmakers alike to ensure that educational institutions remain spaces of learning and personal growth, free from the blight of ragging.
Ragging in Sri Lanka: Historical Context and Current Trends
Ragging, often recognized as a rite of passage in Sri Lankan universities, is a tradition that has become deeply embedded within the student culture. While it may appear as a long-standing custom, historical records do not indicate that ragging was present in ancient educational institutions such as the Mahavihara or Abhayagiri Vihara. It is believed that this practice emerged post-World War II, influenced by the experiences of Sri Lankan soldiers who returned from combat. These soldiers reintegrated into academic life and introduced a military-style approach to ragging, which served as a method to foster cohesion and teamwork by breaking down individual identities. This military-centric attitude towards ragging has since transformed, evolving into a more violent and aggressive practice, often associated with political maneuvering and intimidation.
Despite the detrimental effects of ragging on student welfare, the practice remains prevalent in many government and several private universities across Sri Lanka. Administrations have made sporadic attempts to address and mitigate the issue, but there is often a reluctance to take a firm stance against ragging. This hesitancy is compounded by the belief among some students that ragging is a necessary and enriching experience within university life. As such, many students actively resist reforms aimed at curbing ragging. In response to this ongoing challenge, a growing movement among students has emerged, promoting safer environments through the creation of ‘safe spaces’ and encouraging peers to travel in larger, supportive groups to navigate the ragging period.
The ragging period, usually spanning the initial months of a fresher’s experience in university, is characterized by various forms of harassment and mockery from senior students aimed at newcomers. While the traditional format involved seniors verbally taunting freshers, this has diversified into a range of practices that can include both psychological and physical intimidation. Each university may exhibit unique variations of ragging, reflecting not only the institution's culture but also broader societal influences. As awareness of the harmful consequences of ragging grows, there is hope that concerted efforts from students, educators, and administrators will lead to more effective solutions that promote a safer, more inclusive university experience for all students.
Adverse Consequences of Ragging
Ragging, a form of initiation practiced primarily in educational institutions, has been associated with a wide range of adverse effects on victims, including physical, behavioral, emotional, and social issues. In the context of Sri Lankan universities, incidences of ragging are particularly concerning as they have led to an increased risk of mental health crises, including suicides and a significant number of student dropouts. These alarming trends signify the deep-rooted impact ragging has on individuals, often resulting in long-term psychological harm and a detrimental academic experience for many students.
Research indicates that the frequency and severity of ragging are much lower in private universities and higher education institutions compared to government universities. This disparity has led to a shift among students with the financial means who opt for private establishments, seeking to escape the toxic culture that ragging perpetuates in public institutions. Despite this, ragging remains a complex issue that extends beyond a mere socio-legal problem; it is deeply intertwined with psychological factors. Many senior students have admitted to feeling pressured by peers to engage in ragging, even when they themselves may not condone such practices.
The experiences of freshers further illustrate the divided opinions surrounding ragging. While some new students may view it as a rite of passage and even enjoy the camaraderie it comes with, a significant number find it demoralizing and traumatizing. The memories of such experiences can deter victims from engaging further with their seniors, leading to alienation within the university community. The emotional toll, often described as "inhumane mental and physical torture," can foster feelings of distrust and anxiety among new students, significantly affecting their ability to integrate and flourish in their academic environment.
Moreover, institutions must recognize the long-term implications of ragging, including its potential to contribute to academic failure and reduced professional development opportunities for affected students. It is essential that universities implement comprehensive anti-ragging policies and support systems, including counseling services, to mitigate the psychological impact on victims. Addressing the roots of ragging culture and reorienting student relationships towards respect and mentorship rather than abuse is vital for fostering a healthier educational atmosphere.
History of Ragging in Sri Lankan Universities
Ragging, a form of initiation ceremony traditionally observed in universities, has led to significant consequences in Sri Lanka, particularly noted from the 1970s onward. The serious issue of ragging was brought to national attention during an incident in 1974 at Vidyalankara University, which today stands as the University of Kelaniya. The incident sparked outrage and led Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike to form the V. W. Kularatne Commission to investigate the practices of ragging within universities. This inquiry determined severe penalties for 12 undergraduates involved in the ragging incident and called for disciplinary actions against four officials who failed to act. This commission marked a crucial governmental intervention aimed at curbing ragging in Sri Lankan higher education institutions.
The subsequent years saw a tragic pattern emerge, with ragging incidents resulting in devastating harm and fatalities. In 1975, the University of Peradeniya encountered its first death related to ragging when Rupa Rathnaseeli, a 22-year-old student, sustained severe injuries after jumping from a hostel window to escape ongoing abuse from senior students. This tragic moment underscored the dire consequences of ragging, as Rupa Rathnaseeli tragically took her own life years later, in 2002. Reports from other institutions, including the School of Agriculture in Angunakolapallassa, further illustrated the severe implications of these practices when Prasanga Niroshana died from unexplained injuries attributed to ragging behavior.
The dangers of ragging continued into the late 1990s, with incidents like the death of S. Varapragash in 1997, who succumbed to kidney failure following severe hazing at the University of Peradeniya. His case highlighted the urgent need to enforce laws against such brutal practices, as the primary accused evaded justice yet was sentenced in absentia. Similarly, that same year, Kelum Thushara Wijetunge’s death from kidney failure after extreme physical abuse served as a grim reminder of the potential for life-threatening harm associated with ragging rites.
As the 2000s unfolded, the struggle against ragging intensified. The assassination of Samantha Vithanage, a management student who actively campaigned against ragging, illustrated the extreme lengths to which those involved in such cultures would go to maintain it. His tragic death raised alarms about the culture of violence perpetuated in universities. Further instances, like the suicide of D. K. Nishantha in 2014—following his witnessing of sexual assault incidents— and the suicides of Amali Chathurika and Dilhan Wijesinghe in subsequent years, further demonstrated the pervasive and destructive nature of ragging and the mental toll it inflicts on students.
In recent years, the issue has gained increased recognition, yet continues to challenge multiple university administrations and the broader educational framework in Sri Lanka. A 2022 incident where Nuwan Lakshitha Devasurendra tragically committed suicide further exemplified the ongoing crisis within these institutions. As investigations continue into these incidents, it is clear that a systemic change is needed to protect students and eradicate the toxic practices associated with ragging. The combination of these events, spanning decades, paints a stark picture of the urgent need for robust interventions and reforms to ensure safety and dignity within Sri Lankan universities.
Legal Framework of Human Rights Protection in Sri Lanka
The Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka serves as the fundamental legal framework safeguarding the human rights of its citizens. Enshrined as the supreme law of the land, the Constitution allows individuals to file petitions to the Supreme Court if they believe their rights have been infringed upon, as outlined in Article 126. This provision is particularly significant as it empowers citizens to seek legal recourse against any human rights violations. Furthermore, the Constitution explicitly condemns any form of treatment that is ruthless, brutal, or contemptuous, emphasizing the state's commitment to upholding human dignity and protecting individuals from maltreatment.
University students in Sri Lanka are also afforded these constitutional protections as citizens. They are subject to the Common Law prevailing in the country, which outlines specific legal standards of conduct. Consequently, university students are expected to adhere to the same legal principles as any other citizen. This encompasses accountability for civil or criminal offenses, with the stipulation that if a violation of rights occurs, the offending students can be brought before the courts and face appropriate penalties following judicial proceedings. This framework seeks to reinforce the notion that the rule of law applies universally, regardless of the educational status of individuals.
In response to a troubling history of ragging and other forms of violence within educational institutions, the Sri Lankan parliament enacted the Prohibition of Ragging and Other Forms of Violence in Educational Institutions Act, No. 20 of 1998. This legislative measure was born out of the necessity to combat the pervasive culture of ragging that had led to serious instances of abuse and trauma among students. The Act aims to eradicate not only ragging but also any violent, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment within educational settings. It explicitly defines the scope of higher educational institutions that fall under its ambit, encompassing all universities established under the Universities Act of 1978. This targeted legal approach highlights the government's commitment to fostering safer educational environments and protecting students from harm, thereby promoting both their physical safety and psychological well-being.
Emergence of the Anti-Ragging Movement in Sri Lanka
In Sri Lanka, the issue of ragging among university students has prompted spontaneous responses from various faculties, leading to the emergence of a grassroots anti-ragging movement. Unlike India's formal anti-ragging initiatives, Sri Lanka's efforts have developed organically, with students advocating against the practice as conditions around ragging continue to worsen each year. The University of Peradeniya, the largest institution of higher learning in the country, became a focal point for this movement in 1996. Before this period, there were no significant efforts to combat ragging, and some individuals found ways to escape its clutches, but many were left vulnerable to its negative effects.
As awareness around ragging grew, similar anti-ragging campaigns began to take shape across other universities. Each university's faculties have made strides towards creating rag-free environments, supported by the strengthening of laws and regulations. Furthermore, practical measures, such as restricting accommodation facilities for first-year students, have made it increasingly difficult for the practice of ragging to continue unabated. These proactive steps collectively contributed to the diminishing incidence of ragging in several institutions.
Nevertheless, the battle between ragging and anti-ragging factions has occasionally led to conflict. A poignant example involves Samantha Vithanage, a third-year management student at the University of Sri Jayewardenepura, who was tragically killed during a meeting aimed at discussing anti-ragging campaigns. Her death brought national attention to the severity of ragging-related violence and catalyzed discussions around the urgent need for reforms and the safety of students on campuses. Following Samantha’s death, Sri Lanka’s then-minister of higher education, S. B. Dissanayake, publicly vowed to take decisive actions against individuals involved in ragging, emphasizing that students found guilty would face expulsion. By December 2011, he noted a significant decline in ragging incidents, stating that only the University of Peradeniya and Ruhuna remained notably affected by this troubling issue. This suggests a gradual shift in the academic culture towards greater accountability and student safety in Sri Lanka's higher education landscape.