In Abeyasinghe, a MPhil student at a public university was sexually and mentally harassed by her co-supervisor. Following a complaint to the Vice Chancellor, a Formal Inquiry Committee (FIC) found Prof. Thilakaratne guilty but the University Council decided to reject the Committee report. The victim submitted a formal complaint to the University Grants Commission (UGC), yet the Council reaffirmed its earlier decision. A complaint was also made at the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka. As a last resort, the victim petitioned to the Supreme Court, claiming the inaction of the Council has violated her fundamental rights. While  Article 345 of the Penal Code  recognises sexual harassment as a criminal offence, the victim filed a fundamental rights claim, as the case was also about accountability and responsibility of the university as a workplace in addressing complaints of sexual harassment as much as it was about the specific crime.

Workplaces have a responsibility to provide a safe and supportive environment for employees as established in Brandix Apparel v. Fernando. Internal mechanisms are established within workplaces to ensure that perpetrators of such crimes are held accountable. However, in this case, the internal mechanism failed as it didn’t act on the findings that found the accused guilty. Therefore, the petitioner claimed the council’s failure to act has of the Constitution of Sri Lanka.

The respondents claimed the application is time barred as it was filed past to which, the courts agreed. However, relying on thein Noble Resources v. Siyambalapitiya,  it was expressed that the “courts cannot close its eyes” and allow the state or public authorities “to go unchecked”, because of the lack of “locus standi”. The courts emphasized that administrative delays and procedural barriers should not lead to the denial of justice, specifically since survivors of workplace harassment have to navigate a lengthy internal process exhausting which they resort to the judiciary, with the fear of re-traumatisation. Therefore, invoking Article 126(4) of the Constitution that provides extensive powers to the court to issue just and equitable directions, the courts decided not to dismiss the case.

Furthermore, the respondent did not impugn the findings of the FIC and the inaction of the Council does not make the findings null or void. Thereby, the court affirmed the findings of the FIC to be valid while indicating that internal mechanisms of inquiry are not merely symbolic mechanisms and institutions cannot disregard their own findings and avoid accountability.

Relying on the findings of the FIC, the court prohibited Prof. Thilakaratne from holding any academic post in Sri Lankan universities. Further, no institute under the UGC can provide him with any such opportunities and the University of Peradeniya was directed to enforce and raise awareness of sexual harassment for staff and students.

This judgement has broader implications on educational institutions and workplaces across Sri Lanka. It emphasises the responsibility of workplaces but also educational institutions to respond to sexual and gender-based violence and instill mechanisms to address such issues not merely on paper but in operation. Finally, the intervention of the Supreme Court when the internal mechanisms failed reaffirms that institutions cannot evade responsibility through administrative delay or bureaucratic cover ups and the courts will not bar from justice due to legal technicalities. The case at large, elevated workplace harassment from an internal disciplinary issue to an issue that engages constitutional guarantees of dignity and equality.

The Anti-Corruption Act is a long awaited legislative development, given the lacunae in Sri Lanka’s existing anti-corruption framework. The statute also aligns the existing framework with obligations under the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC). Moreover, it represents a necessary step towards curbing corruption and mismanagement within the government, one of the major causes of the economic crisis. Thus, the general expectation is that the new Anti-Corruption Act will not only protect specific human rights, but may also help to address the structural obstacles of corruption that hinder the implementation and enjoyment of all human rights in the country.

A significant addition to the Act’s anti-corruption legal framework is the inclusion of Section 80 which requires even executive officers (including the President) to electronically submit their assets and liabilities to the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery and Corruption (CIABOC). Failure to comply with the provision is liable to result in a fine being levied. Significantly, section 162 of the Act also designates sexual bribery, where a sexual favour is requested for the fulfilment of a service, as a crime for the first time. Sexual bribery is not only a form of corruption but a direct human rights violation, breaching the right to dignity and physical integrity, the right to privacy, and the right to freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. It is therefore to be hoped that existing human rights violations in Sri Lanka, fuelled principally by corruption, may decrease.

However, the Anti-corruption Act includes certain provisions that are detrimental to the already deteriorating human rights condition in Sri Lanka.  Section 119 of the Act makes it an offence for a person to have made an allegation, if the person knows the allegation to be false or has reason to believe that it is false. They may be charged a fine or imprisoned for a term of ten years or fewer. This restricts opportunities for citizens to take action against corruption and the misuse of executive power. In this way, it indirectly sanctions human rights violations, in a country where those in power are already engaging in widespread corruption and human rights violations.

Furthermore, Section 28 of the Act requires ‘every member of the Commission… [and] every officer or employee of the Commission or any other person whose services are retained by the Commission‘ to sign a declaration of non-disclosure (subject to the provisions under the Right to Information Act 2016). The Commission would only consider it necessary for such information to be disclosed if in the public interest. Hence this provision appears to encourage secrecy within the Commission and may hinder freedom of public information.

In enacting this Anti-Corruption statute, the expectation is that major obstacles to upholding human rights and addressing corruption will be addressed. However, certain provisions of the Act are implicitly inconsistent with fundamental human rights obligations, limiting its power to address executive misconduct. As such, the effectiveness of the Act – which depends on its appropriate implementation and enforcement – remains uncertain.

Want to learn more?

• Read: Sri Lankan High Court Delivers a Landmark Order as a Bulwark for Freedom of Expression
• Read: The Crimmigration of Sri Lankan Tamil Refugees in India
• Read: Lahore High Court Strikes Down Pakistan’s Colonial Era Sedition Law
• Read: Rosanna Flamer Caldera v Sri Lanka CEDAW 2022: The First International Case on Lesbian Criminalisation