In 2024, Sexual Harassment was the second most reported crime in Sri Lanka and the “workplace” remainsprimary location of the crime. However, only a few cases reach the courts due to stigma, shame and fear of repercussions. In this context, the recent Sri Lankan on addressing workplace sexual harassment is highly encouraging as it prevents bureaucratic cover ups, administrative delays and legal technicalities from barring justice, while exposing weak internal systems of handling sexual and gender-based violence in workplaces.

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.