Teacher saved by Court - EDITORIAL

he Supreme Court ruling on the fundamental rights petition filed by a teacher against her interdiction over her interview given to an electronic media is, no doubt, a landmark decision since there is a notion among the higher ups of the public service that the Establishment Code for the public service has to be followed under any circumstance. It is a landmark ruling as it has upheld the freedom of expression of the citizens setting a specific precedence in respect of the Establishment Code.   
The graduate teacher in question, Manohari Pelaketiya is serving as a teacher of ‘Eastern Music’ at Mahanama College and according to the court case as well as the interviews she had given to the media after the Court ruling had been sexually harassed by School Principal Premalal Kumarasiri and male teacher T.T. Malegoda. The Principal is also said to have been harassing her using his administrative powers.   
As no tangible and meaningful results were shown, in any of the investigations said to have conducted by the police and the Education Ministry and with no justice being meted out to her, she went public and her services were suspended in 2012 on the grounds that she had violated the Establishment Code. The Court said her suspension by the Education Ministry was a violation of the Constitution on the basis that the authorities had failed to realize and understand the plight of the petitioner in the hands and under the control of indecent public servants within the school premises. The Mahanama College Principal and the male found guilty of harassing the petitioner were each ordered to pay Rs.100,000 to the victimized teacher.   

Although the verdict, in the context of the Government’s move to implement the Right to Information (RTI) Act through the 19th Amendment to the Constitution is a victory for public servants and the media industry there are several unanswered questions in connection with the harassment issue.   
According to the verdict, is it correct to say that the Establishment Code is still a hindrance to the freedom of expression under any other circumstance where a victim is meted out justice within his or her workplace or the relevant government department? How long has one to wait to decide that justice would not be done to him or her and that the time is ripe to exercise the freedom of expression? The media and the civil society would have to work towards getting these points cleared up in the future.   
Apart from the right to information aspect involved in the matter, the most serious point is that sexual harassment had taken place in a government school, a place meant to be the cradle of a descent future generation. However, the education authorities have neglected that aspect and given more weight to uphold the Establishment Code. Despite the Supreme Court’s injunction order against her suspension in 2012, the Ministry of Education had continued its investigation against her and at its conclusion, had revoked her increment and fined her Rs.30,000. Isn’t this tantamount to contempt of court, apart from encouraging indecent behaviour by teachers and principals?   

Will the education authorities and the police department now take action against those officials who did not attempt to mete out justice to the teacher when they received the complaints against the sex predators or is it too much to expect.   
After the verdict was delivered, Ms. Pelaketiya had told the media that she was not the only victim of sex predators in the education sector. True, according to media reports, there have been various cases against school principals and education ministry officials for soliciting or receiving sexual bribes from the teachers and the mothers of schoolchildren. These incidents point to a grave situation in the education sector which requires a cleanup process. Again we cannot expect it to happen, given the experience of the Sri Lankan people with regard to the bureaucracy and the politics in the country.