For years, corporal punishment in schools has remained a contested issue in Sri Lanka. That is now beginning to change with the new directive issued by the Ministry of Education.
This development reflects a gradual shift away from the long-standing cultural acceptance of such practices in schools and toward a more child rights oriented approach to discipline. By issuing a directive that prioritises children’s dignity and psychological well-being over traditional forms of physical discipline, the State affirms that violence has no place within the education system.
This approach is consistent with international human rights standards set out in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, particularly Article 19, which requires protection from all forms of physical or mental violence, and Article 28(2), which mandates that school discipline be administered in a manner consistent with the child’s dignity.
In this context, the directive represents an important step toward aligning national policy with these standards, ensuring that discipline is oriented toward guidance and development rather than harm.
What is Corporal Punishment?
Corporal punishment refers to the deliberate use of physical force such as hitting, spanking, paddling or any other similar methods that cause pain or discomfort. Most commonly directed at children by adults, with the objective of modifying or regulating behaviour.
A History of Acceptance
For decades, corporal punishment has been normalised in schools and homes in Sri Lanka and was justified as a necessary tool for discipline, rooted in cultural norms and reinforced by legal ambiguity. Provisions in the Penal Code of Sri Lanka for instance, Section 82 allowed acts done “in good faith” for a child’s benefit, while Section 341 included an illustration suggesting that a teacher administering physical punishment was not acting unlawfully.
Although certain protections were introduced over time, such as laws addressing cruelty to children, these did not amount to a full abolition. As a result, corporal punishment continued to exist in practice, though it was discouraged in policy. In 2016, the Ministry of Education issued a circular [Circular No. 12/2016], discouraging the use of corporal punishment in Government and Government approved private schools. However, these measures were often inconsistently implemented and lacked strong enforcement mechanisms.
The Role of the Supreme Court
A key shift began with judicial intervention. In 2021, the Supreme Court made clear that corporal punishment in schools can amount to a violation of Article 11 of the Constitution, which prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. It confirmed that disciplinary measures must at all times uphold the dignity of the child and should not involve physical or psychological harm.
The 2026 Directive: Zero Tolerance
Building on these developments, the Ministry of Education has now issued Circular No. 11/2026, marking a decisive step forward. The directive clearly states that corporal punishment and any form of physical or psychological harm to students are strictly prohibited in all schools.
The circular emphasises a policy of zero tolerance which makes it clear that no child can be subjected to physical or psychological punishment for disciplinary purposes or for any other reason. Those found responsible will face legal consequences. The directive also reinforces existing frameworks by referring back to Circular No. 12/2016 and noting that disciplinary action against offenders must be taken under the Establishments Code 461/2012, which governs public officials. This signals a stronger commitment not only to policy, but to enforcement as well.
The Gap in Law/ Directive & Reality
A significant gap exists between legal standards and their enforcement in practice. Under Section 82 of the Penal Code, acts done “in good faith” for the benefit of a child, even with the consent of a parent or guardian, are protected from criminal liability. In the context of corporal punishment, this provision creates a clear loophole. Although administrative measures such as Ministry of Education directives prohibit physical punishment in schools, these do not override statutory law. As a result, a teacher or caregiver can still rely on Section 82 to argue that the use of physical force was carried out in good faith for disciplinary purposes. This shifts the focus from the harm caused to the intent behind the act, thereby weakening accountability and undermining efforts to effectively eliminate corporal punishment in practice.
This challenge is further reinforced by social and family dynamics. “Parents place the responsibility of disciplining children on teachers, while taking on a more lenient role themselves. They play the good cop while the teachers are expected to play the bad cop” Dileepa Manawadu (Founder-Kinder Republic). This shift in responsibility can normalise the use of physical punishment in schools and reduce accountability.
A Shift in Mindset
While the new directive is a critical step forward, the real challenge is changing the traditional thinking pattern. Corporal punishment has been normalised for generations, and moving away from it requires more than a simple directive. Effective change requires greater awareness among parents, teachers, and guardians, and a shared understanding of non-violent forms of discipline and the harms of corporal punishment. Teachers and caregivers must be educated on alternative methods of discipline that are constructive, non-violent, and rooted in respect. Training, awareness, and accountability will be key to ensuring that the directive is not just a document, but a lived reality in classrooms across the country.
“Students should never be subjected to physical or psychological punishment. In my 31-year career as an educator, there was a time when I believed severe punishment was necessary to maintain discipline, and even the law permitted it to some extent. However, about 20 years ago, I changed course and began using more constructive approaches such as compassionate guidance, individual counselling, and positive discipline. Although these approaches required more time, they produced better results. Yet when many of my former students, now fathers themselves, speak positively of the punishments they once received, I feel deep regret”.
– M. M. Shazuli Former Educator (1994–2025)
Looking Ahead
The Ministry’s directive marks an important turning point affirming that violence has no place in education. Children are entitled to learn in environments that are safe, respectful, and nurturing. For lasting and enforceable change, a clear statutory prohibition is needed. If effectively implemented, these measures have the potential to transform not only school environments, but broader societal attitudes toward children moving from a culture of punishment to one of protection, dignity, and care.
