Court of Appeal dismisses Ruhuna Uni student activist's writ petition
A Writ Petition filed by a student activist suspended for allegedly insulting the Vice Chancellor and Deputy Vice Chancellor of the Ruhuna University has been dismissed by the Court of Appeal (CA).
The petitioner had appealed to the CA to issue an order quashing the suspension imposed by the University on him pending the outcome of a formal disciplinary inquiry.
The petitioner, D M Prasanna Madhusanka Bandara is a final year student of the Ruhuna University’s Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences. He had stated in his petition that he is the President of the de- facto “Main Union” of the students’ unions of the University.
The petitioner’s studentship had been suspended by a letter dated October 15, 2021, where it was determined that he had posted a chat message through ‘ Zoom’ insulting the Vice Chancellor and Deputy Vice Chancellor of the University at the live launching ceremony of the updated website of the Faculty of
Humanities and Social Sciences of the University. A report had been submitted to the Vice Chancellor by the Investigations Committee consisting of three Professors who conducted the preliminary investigations upon the allegations against the petitioner. As a result, the Council of the University, based on the recommendations made in the report, had decided and approved to issue a charge sheet against the petitioner.
The petitioner had contended that he was not given any form of hearing prior to his suspension and also that the said decision is disproportionate and harsh.
The other point contended by the petitioner is that in terms of the by-laws approved by the Council of the University, the Vice Chancellor could suspend a student from attending lectures, courses or any other course of study at the University only for a period not exceeding two weeks. The respondents though, had argued that in terms of clause 36 of the said by-laws, the Vice Chancellor has the authority and power to take appropriate actions in contrary to those by-laws and provisions if the Vice Chancellor thinks it is necessary to maintain discipline at the University.
In his order, Justice Sobitha Rajakaruna notes that a formal disciplinary inquiry is supposed to be held against the petitioner in due course. Accordingly, no decision has been taken to expel the petitioner from the University other than the decision to suspend his studentship, subjected to a formal disciplinary inquiry.
Section 34(6) (b) of the Universities Act declares that a Vice Chancellor of a University shall be responsible for the maintenance of discipline within the University. The discipline is paramount in any educational institute and it is the duty of all stakeholders to safeguard the rights of the students who are eagerly awaiting to step into the next level in their career path, the judge notes.
“In that context, it’s my view that committing an offence by defaming or abusing such disciplinary authority of a higher Educational Institution, in public, is a significant threat to the peace and harmony between the students and the authorities, and also a serious breakdown of discipline. The criminal offences such as assault, sexual harassment and ragging which cause physical and mental injury are also in the same cluster of misbehaviour creating serious breakdown of discipline. In a judicial review application this Court, in my view, can take into account those ideologies to assess any purported malfunctioning of rule of natural justice in the process of taking decisions to maintain the high standards of discipline within a University.”
In the circumstances, the judge states that he is convinced that the allegations against the petitioner is yet to be inquired into at the formal disciplinary inquiry, and the alleged conduct of the petitioner is, prima facie, a flagrant violation of discipline in the University which disturbs the smooth administration of the authorities for the benefit of the majority of students. Therefore, he has ruled that the petitioner has no lawful ground at this stage to maintain this application and seek any discretionary relief from the court.