By Padmasena Dissanayake (‘67-‘74)
Secretary Royal College Old Hostelers Association (ROCOHA) ‘96-‘00
Nearly 19 months after Athula Wijewardene assumed leadership of Royal College, Colombo, mounting concerns over classroom teaching, hostel welfare, financial accountability, minority students and school governance have raised difficult questions. Yet the most important question may not concern the Principal alone. It concerns those who selected him, assessed his suitability and remain responsible for supervising his administration.
A Leadership Appointment That Demands Answers
When Athula Wijewardene assumed duties as the 29th Principal of Royal College, Colombo, on April 3, 2025, he inherited responsibility for one of Sri Lanka’s most prominent and complex government educational institutions.
Nearly 19 months later, his administration has become the subject of increasingly pointed criticism from sections of the school’s parent and alumni communities.
The concerns extend across several areas, including classroom instruction, hostel management, financial transparency, the conduct of School Development Society elections and the treatment of minority students.
Some allegations remain unverified, while others involve documented proceedings before public authorities.
Nevertheless, their cumulative significance raises a fundamental question about accountability.
Wijewardene did not appoint himself.
The Ministry of Education and the officials responsible for his selection must therefore explain how his suitability was assessed, what professional criteria were applied and whether adequate mechanisms were established to monitor his performance.
Royal College is no longer simply an institution associated with Colombo’s traditional social elite.
Its students include children from middle-income families, provincial communities and households that have made considerable sacrifices to secure admission through the Grade Five Scholarship Examination.
Many arrive with exceptional academic records and high expectations.
For those families, Royal College represents more than prestige. It represents an opportunity to secure an education that might otherwise be beyond their reach.
Any deterioration in teaching, administration or student welfare therefore carries consequences far beyond the school’s historic reputation.
1. Questions About Leadership and Administrative Competence
Before his appointment to Royal College, Wijewardene reportedly served as principal of a school in Weeraketiya.
Experience at a smaller institution does not automatically make an administrator unsuitable for a larger appointment. Nor should a person’s geographical background determine their professional prospects.
However, the responsibilities involved in managing Royal College require substantial administrative experience, sound judgement and the ability to coordinate a large and diverse educational community.
The institution accommodates approximately 8,000 students, numerous academic and extracurricular programmes, an extensive teaching staff and several influential stakeholder organisations.
Managing an institution of this scale demands more than academic qualifications or years of service.
A principal must maintain effective classroom instruction, ensure student welfare, coordinate staff responsibilities, protect public resources and communicate effectively with parents.
Critics of Wijewardene’s administration have questioned whether he has demonstrated these capabilities consistently.
Allegations of Disrupted Classroom Teaching
Among the concerns raised by parents are reports that students, particularly in senior grades, sometimes receive instruction during only two or three periods of an eight-period school day.
If accurate, such disruption would represent a significant failure of educational administration.
Students who have spent years preparing to enter Royal College are entitled to a full and properly organised programme of instruction.
Their families should not have to rely on private tuition to compensate for avoidable deficiencies in classroom teaching.
These allegations require verification through official timetables, teacher attendance records and classroom monitoring reports.
The Ministry of Education should establish whether any significant loss of instructional time has occurred, identify its causes and explain what corrective action has been taken.
It should also examine whether the principal has received the staffing and administrative support necessary to fulfil his responsibilities.
Accountability requires examining both individual performance and the institutional conditions in which that performance is expected.
2. The Royal College Hostel: When a Scholarship Dream Becomes a Family Crisis
Perhaps the most distressing allegations concern the Royal College hostel.
For scholarship students arriving from distant parts of Sri Lanka, residential accommodation can determine whether they are able to attend the school at all.
The original account alleges that 86 students entered the hostel at the beginning of 2026 and that 38 subsequently left.
It further claims that, in previous years, departures among first-year Grade Six boarders rarely exceeded six.
These figures have not been independently verified against official hostel records.
Nevertheless, if substantiated, they would indicate an unusually high departure rate deserving immediate investigation.
Questions have also been raised about the appointment and performance of a hostel warden identified as Gunewardene, who is reportedly no longer serving in that position.
Critics allege that dissatisfaction with hostel management contributed to the departures.
The reasons for individual students leaving, however, must be independently established before responsibility can fairly be assigned to the former warden or the principal.
The Financial Burden on Rural Families
According to the supplied account, hostel accommodation costs approximately Rs. 7,500 per month.
Private boarding arrangements in and around Colombo reportedly cost between Rs. 20,000 and Rs. 30,000 monthly.
For families from rural communities, that difference can be considerable.
Some parents may be forced to arrange daily transport from locations such as Panadura, Kadawatha, Homagama, Athurugiriya or Katunayake.
Others may find that the additional cost makes continued attendance financially impossible.
The consequences can be particularly severe for scholarship students who entered Royal College after years of preparation.
A child’s academic achievement should not be undermined by failures in accommodation or welfare.
The Case of a Student From Galgamuwa
One account concerns a student who entered Royal College in January 2026 after attending a primary school in the Galgamuwa area.
His family reportedly made substantial sacrifices to prepare him for the Grade Five Scholarship Examination, hoping that admission to Royal College would open opportunities unavailable closer to home.
The child is said to have encountered difficulties with hostel accommodation and eventually left Royal College before the end of the second term.
Unlike students whose families were able to arrange alternative boarding in Colombo, he reportedly returned to his home area.
His identity is withheld here because the circumstances concern a minor and have not been independently established.
If the account is accurate, it illustrates the human consequences of inadequate residential support.
Years of preparation, financial sacrifice and educational ambition can be undone when a child no longer feels able to remain at school.
The Ministry of Education should conduct an independent review of hostel admissions, departures, complaints, supervision arrangements and student welfare procedures.
It should also establish whether affected families were offered reasonable alternatives before students withdrew.
Further concerns about the hostel and its administration have been published by Lanka Sky News.
Those accounts warrant investigation, but their allegations should not be treated as established findings without supporting records and responses from the individuals concerned.
3. The Right to Information Dispute: Who Controls Royal College’s Finances?
Unlike several other allegations surrounding the current administration, the controversy over Royal College rugby revenue has resulted in formal proceedings before the Right to Information Commission.
The dispute concerns funds generated through rugby activities during the 2017 and 2018 seasons.
An alumnus sought financial records relating to ticket sales, deposits, audited accounts and associated correspondence.
The amount under scrutiny has been reported at approximately Rs. 17.6 million.
According to reporting on the proceedings, an information request was submitted on February 6, 2024. The matter subsequently reached the Right to Information Commission after the requested material was not provided.
The proceedings raised questions about the relationship between Royal College, the Royal College Union and committees involved in handling revenue generated through school activities.
The Argument That the Royal College Union Is Independent
During the proceedings, arguments were advanced that the Royal College Union operated as an independent alumni organisation whose financial information was not automatically subject to disclosure through the school’s public authority.
The Commission rejected the position that the records could be withheld on that basis.
Its consideration included the Union’s constitutional arrangements, relevant Ministry of Education circulars and the responsibilities attached to activities conducted using government-owned school facilities.
The Commission ordered the disclosure of relevant financial and audit information.
The decision is significant because public accountability cannot be avoided merely by placing revenue-generating activities under an alumni association or organising committee.
Where facilities belonging to a government school are used to generate money through student participation, the relationship between those revenues and the school’s public obligations requires careful examination.
The dispute raises several questions:
- What financial oversight responsibilities does the principal exercise concerning the Royal College Union?
- Who authorises the collection and expenditure of revenue generated through school facilities?
- What role does the principal play in approving or reviewing relevant accounts?
- Are the financial responsibilities of alumni organisations clearly defined and consistent with Ministry regulations?
- Have the records ordered by the Right to Information Commission been provided?
A finding that financial information must be disclosed is not equivalent to a criminal finding that money was stolen.
The alleged financial discrepancies must be investigated separately, with responsibility established through evidence.
Nevertheless, the Commission’s order demonstrates that the concerns about transparency cannot simply be dismissed.
Related coverage:
- The Morning Telegraph: The Rugby Millions Cover-Up
- Daily FT: RTI Action Compels Royal College to Furnish Information
- Daily Mirror: Royal College Ordered to Disclose Rugby Revenue
- Lanka Sky News: Further Reporting on Royal College Governance
4. Allegations of Religious and Linguistic Discrimination
Royal College has long been associated with an educational tradition that brings together students from different ethnic, religious and social backgrounds.
Its identity as a national institution depends partly on maintaining that inclusive environment.
Recent allegations concerning the treatment of Muslim parents and Tamil-medium students have therefore attracted particular concern.
Restrictions Affecting Muslim Women
Criticism has emerged concerning restrictions reportedly applied to Muslim women wearing face coverings when entering school premises.
School administrators have legitimate responsibilities concerning identification, security and student protection.
However, those responsibilities must be exercised through lawful, proportionate and consistently applied procedures.
Any restriction affecting religious practices should have a clear legal or administrative basis and provide reasonable arrangements that respect individual dignity.
The important question is whether the policy has been implemented fairly and whether alternatives were considered.
Concerns Over Tamil-Medium Education
Separate complaints have questioned whether Tamil-medium students have received equitable treatment in admissions and classroom allocation.
The allegations include claims concerning declining Advanced Level admissions, interview procedures and the reassignment of classroom facilities.
The Morning Telegraph previously examined these concerns in its report:
Royal College Colombo Faces Allegations of Discrimination Against Tamil-Medium Students
The claims require verification through admission records, interview documentation, classroom allocation schedules and the applicable Ministry of Education regulations.
A decline in the number of Tamil-medium students does not, by itself, establish discrimination.
However, if qualified applicants have been denied fair consideration or appropriate facilities, the Ministry must investigate and address the reasons.
Additional allegations and criticism of the administration have appeared in the following commentaries:
- Real Royal College: The Sudden Collapse of Royal College’s Administration
- Real Royal College: Questions About Principal Athula Wijewardene
These blog posts represent critical perspectives and allegations. They should not be mistaken for independent findings of misconduct.
The responsibility of a national school is to serve every student fairly, irrespective of ethnicity, religion, language or family background.
Royal College’s administration should be able to demonstrate that its policies meet that standard.
5. The 2026 School Development Society Elections
The School Development Society plays an important role in supporting Royal College’s facilities, educational activities and development programmes.
Its governance consequently deserves a high standard of transparency.
The supplied account alleges that the society has historically operated under the influence of a relatively small group of stakeholders, with insufficient access to audited financial information.
Critics further allege that financial management and contracts have not been subjected to adequate independent scrutiny.
These are serious accusations that require documentary evidence.
The article’s original account claims that concerned parents challenged the existing arrangements and sought greater transparency concerning the society’s accounts and annual elections.
It states that an application was made to the Court of Appeal after requests for audited accounts and an annual general meeting were allegedly not adequately addressed.
Disputes Over Nominations and Voting
The complainants reportedly maintain that audited accounts were made available only on the day of the election, preventing parents from examining the documents properly before voting.
Further allegations concern the rejection of nominations, the conduct of the election and claims that the principal favoured particular candidates.
The account also states that complaints about the election process have been referred to the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka.
The relevant court papers, election documents and any Human Rights Commission records have not been independently reviewed for this article.
Accordingly, no conclusion can responsibly be drawn that the election was unlawful or that Wijewardene committed misconduct.
Nevertheless, the allegations raise questions that can be resolved through documentary disclosure.
The society should be able to publish its governing rules, election procedures, nomination requirements, financial statements and relevant audit reports.
Parents and other eligible stakeholders should have sufficient time to review those records.
An institution entrusted with resources intended to benefit students must demonstrate that decisions are made fairly and transparently.
The earlier reporting concerning rugby revenue, financial disclosure and school governance provides relevant background:
- The Morning Telegraph: Royal College Rugby Revenue Investigation
- Daily FT: RTI Proceedings Concerning School Revenue
- Daily Mirror: Financial Disclosure Order
- Lanka Sky News: Reporting on Royal College Financial Disputes
These reports concern related questions of transparency but do not independently establish wrongdoing in the 2026 School Development Society election.
6. English Proficiency Is Not the Measure of Leadership
Another criticism raised against Wijewardene concerns his communication style, particularly his proficiency in English.
A commentary published by the Real Royal College Blog has questioned communications attributed to the principal.
Real Royal College: Principal’s WhatsApp Communications
The broader issue of professional communication deserves consideration, but the criticism must be assessed fairly.
English proficiency is not a substitute for educational competence, administrative ability or professional integrity.
A principal should not be judged negatively because he was educated or previously employed outside Colombo.
Nor should an administrator be ridiculed for speaking English with an accent or choosing to communicate in Sinhala or Tamil.
What matters is whether official communications are understandable, accurate, respectful and appropriate for the audience.
A national school serving multilingual families should maintain effective communication systems that accommodate parents and students in the country’s official languages.
The Ministry of Education should assess principals according to their capacity to lead, manage staff, protect students and discharge their statutory responsibilities.
Those are considerably more meaningful measures than social background or spoken English.
7. The Real Question: Who Is Accountable for the Appointment?
The controversies surrounding Royal College are not all supported by the same standard of evidence.
The Right to Information dispute has resulted in a documented disclosure order.
The hostel departure figures, allegations concerning the School Development Society elections and complaints about discriminatory treatment require further verification.
Claims about teaching standards also need examination through official records.
These distinctions matter.
Criticism of public officials is legitimate, but accountability cannot be established through accusation alone.
At the same time, the absence of a completed investigation should not prevent credible concerns from being examined.
The Ministry of Education must therefore address questions that extend beyond the principal’s individual performance.
Questions the Ministry Must Answer
- Appointment criteria: What qualifications, professional experience and administrative competencies were considered when Athula Wijewardene was appointed to Royal College?
- Assessment process: Was his ability to manage an institution of Royal College’s size and complexity formally evaluated?
- Teaching standards: Has the Ministry examined complaints concerning missed classroom periods and alleged disruption of scheduled instruction?
- Hostel welfare: How many students entered and left the hostel during 2026, and what reasons were recorded for their departures?
- Financial accountability: What action has been taken to comply with the Right to Information Commission’s directions concerning disputed rugby revenue?
- School Development Society: Have allegations about the conduct of the 2026 elections been independently examined?
- Equal treatment: What steps have been taken to investigate complaints concerning Tamil-medium education and restrictions affecting Muslim parents?
- Performance monitoring: What supervisory assessments have been conducted since Wijewardene assumed office?
- Right of reply: What explanations have been provided by the principal and other officials concerning these complaints?
These questions are not an invitation to prejudge anyone.
They are the minimum questions that should be asked when public confidence in the administration of a major national school is challenged.
8. Royal College Belongs to Its Students, Not Its Administrators
Royal College’s reputation has been built across generations by students, teachers, principals, parents and alumni.
No single administrator owns that legacy.
Nor should the institution’s history be used to prevent legitimate scrutiny of its present administration.
Its educational responsibilities are especially significant because many students come from families that have invested years of effort and considerable resources in securing admission.
For a child from a distant rural community, obtaining a place at Royal College may represent an extraordinary personal achievement.
For parents managing limited household budgets, hostel accommodation and reliable classroom instruction may determine whether that opportunity remains viable.
For minority students, equal access to educational facilities and fair administrative treatment are essential.
For the wider public, transparent management of school-related funds is an obligation, not a favour.
If investigations establish that administrative failures have occurred, those responsible should be held accountable.
If allegations prove unfounded, the findings should be made clear so that the reputations of individuals and the institution are not unfairly damaged.
But the Ministry of Education cannot avoid responsibility simply by treating every controversy as a problem belonging solely to the principal.
Athula Wijewardene did not appoint himself.
Those who selected him had a duty to determine his suitability.
Those responsible for supervising him have an ongoing duty to assess his performance.
And if serious shortcomings are established, those authorities must explain why they were not identified and addressed sooner.
The ultimate measure of accountability will not be whether Royal College changes its principal. It will be whether Sri Lanka’s education authorities establish a system capable of protecting students, ensuring competent leadership and preventing the same controversies from recurring under the next appointment.
