Popular young actress Harshi Rasanga was arrested after allegedly pawning a gold necklace worth over Rs. 900,000 given to her by cricketer Bhanuka Rajapaksa, who was reportedly her fourth partner, sparking a legal battle and intense social media backlash involving character assassination, sexual innuendo, and criticism of cricketers’ conduct.
A legal and personal crisis between popular young actress Harshi Rasanga and renowned cricketer Bhanuka Rajapaksa has become a hot topic on social media. The incident came to light when Thalangama police arrested Harshi Rasanga and produced her in court over allegations of pawning a gold necklace valued at over Rs. 900,000 belonging to another person.
It was later revealed that the necklace actually belonged to Sri Lankan national team aggressive batsman Bhanuka Rajapaksa. It has now been confirmed that the necklace was gifted to her during a nearly year long romantic relationship between the two. Notably, Bhanuka is said to be the fourth among Harshi’s partners.
Born in Colombo in 2003, Harshi Rasanga Rathugamage is 22 years old. She entered the entertainment industry as a child artist. She debuted through “Sujatha Puthra” in 2016 and portrayed the main child role in the Sirasa TV teledrama “Sujatha.” She also played the childhood version of the lead character in the sports film “Udumbara” released in 2018. She works as a popular actress, singer, and social media influencer. She consistently posts fashion, dance, and beauty content through her Instagram and TikTok accounts and has gained attention as one of the most beautiful young actresses in Sri Lanka.
However, her personal life has constantly faced various conflicts and social media rumors. Numerous photos and videos circulate online suggesting her first marriage occurred between 2021 and 2023 with a businessman named Kavindu Madushan. Later, reports indicated she entered a second relationship or marriage with a businessman named Mahen, with wedding photos also circulating online. By early 2026, rumors spread of their separation. While commenting on the incident with Bhanuka Rajapaksa, she confirmed that during that period she had not legally separated from her first marriage.
Her relationship with Bhanuka Rajapaksa developed against this complex background. Bhanuka Rajapaksa had previously been married to an air hostess, and when this new relationship began, his divorce proceedings were ongoing in court. On one occasion when Bhanuka returned to the island from overseas, he brought a marriage proposal to Harshi and even visited her home to seek her parents’ approval. Although her side initially expressed reluctance, due to his insistence, the relationship proceeded with parental blessings. Harshi Rasanga has told the media that numerous disputes and conflicts arose during this nearly year long relationship.
She alleges that during these conflicts, Bhanuka Rajapaksa used his power and status to pressure her and even demanded the return of gifts including a laptop and mobile phone. Although those items were returned when the relationship was later renewed, due to this unstable pattern, she requested that he not gift her any valuable items. Despite this, she claims that after one dispute, Bhanuka Rajapaksa placed this controversial gold necklace worth over Rs. 900,000 around her neck, promising to marry her. Yet, as usual, after another quarrel, he demanded the necklace back.
Deeply frustrated, Harshi Rasanga pawned the necklace at an LB Finance institution in Battaramulla, obtaining Rs. 600,000. According to her, the pawning was done through her employee. She informed Bhanuka Rajapaksa that she had kept the money safely and urged him to complain to the police, pay the amount, and recover the necklace. Following these events, based on a complaint filed by Bhanuka Rajapaksa to Thalangama police, the police complaint division arrested Harshi Rasanga on March 30, 2026, and produced her before the Kaduwela Magistrate’s Court. The court ordered her release on two surety bails of Rs. 500,000 each and also ordered that the necklace be produced in court immediately. The next hearing of the case was postponed to April 22, 2026.
After being released on bail, speaking to the media and on social media, Harshi Rasanga strongly asserted that she had committed no theft. She claimed that Bhanuka Rajapaksa himself placed the necklace around her neck. She also alleged that after filing the complaint, he tried to prevent the legal process from reaching the media and attempted to harass her. Stating that she would reveal the full truth of this relationship to the country after the legal proceedings conclude, she also emphasized that she would take strict legal action against those spreading false propaganda against her.
Analysis of social media comments reveals several key themes:
Sexual Innuendo and Double Entendre: Many commenters made extremely crude and vulgar sexual remarks based on the phrase “placing the necklace around the neck.” Questions such as “Did he only put the necklace?” and “After putting it around the neck, where else did he put it?” indicate that they have judged the incident solely from a mocking and sexual perspective.
Criticism of Cricketers’ Discipline and Conduct: The incident has been used to heavily criticize the contrast between national cricketers’ on-field skills and off-field behavior. Comments like “They haven’t just played cricket,” “We lose matches because of these things,” and “This is why they fail fitness tests” clearly reflect public dissatisfaction and frustration with cricketers’ conduct.
Character Assassination of the Actress: Many comments severely attack the actress’s character based on her previous marriages and age. Mocking the advice she gave about family life online, branding her as someone dependent on money, and using degrading words directly comparing her to a prostitute are commonly observed.
Criticism of the Incident’s Irrelevance and Media Coverage: Some users have pointed out that this incident has no value as national news. They expressed displeasure over dragging a personal romantic dispute this far and publicizing it online, highlighting the triviality of the news with remarks like “Is this bread for us?” and “We have nothing else to do?”
Use of Political and Other Social Symbols: In some comments, the surname “Rajapaksa” was mocked with political connotations. The name of controversial religious preacher “Jerome” was also combined to ridicule the incident.
Overall, these responses reveal an attempt to attack public figures and vent public frustration against cricketers through this incident, rather than focusing on the legal issue itself.
