The Supreme Court fixed the Appeal filed by Sri Lanka Medical Council (SLMC) for support on May 31, today, challenging the judgment of Court of Appeal to register a student of South Asian Institute of Technology and Medicine Limited (SAITM) in Malabe provisionally as a medical practitioner in terms of section 29(2) of the Medical Ordinance.
The Supreme Court bench comprised Justice Buwaneka Aluvihare, Justice Priyantha Jayawardena and Justice Nalin Perera.
Through this appeal petition, the SLMC sought an order to set aside the judgment dated January 31, 2017 by Court of Appeal.
The petitioner further sought an interim order to stay the operation of the judgment made in the writ application bearing No.CA Writ 187/2016 by Court of Appeal.
In this petition, the SLMC had cited Dhilmi Kasunda Malshani Suriyarachchi, a MBBS graduate of SAITM, the SAITM, the Minister of Higher Education and Highways, the Secretary to the Ministry of Higher Education and Highways, the University Grants Commission and the Minister of Health as respondents.
Delivering its judgment on the writ petition filed by a MBBS graduate of the South Asian Institute of Technology and Medicine Limited (SAITM) in Malabe, the Court of Appeal on January 31 held that SAITM is empowered to grant MBBS degrees and further held that the petitioner has legal rights to register at the Sri Lanka Medical Council (SLMC) as a medical practitioner in accordance with the Medical Ordinance.
Court of Appeal Justice Vijith Malalgoda (President) and Justice S. Thurairajah had observed that the petitioner, a MBBS graduate of SAITM has no obstacle to register at SLMC as a medical practitioner in terms of the section 29 (2) of the Medical Ordinance.
The Court of Appeal observed that on or around August 30, 2011, the former Higher Education Minister recognised SAITM as a degree awarding institute in terms of section 25 (A) of the Universities Act No. 16 of 1978.
The Court of Appeal further observed that the Higher Education Minister has not taken any steps to revoke the concerned decision in terms of the section 27 of the said Act.
“The SAITM is empowered to grant MBBS degree,” the Court observed.
In its judgment, the Court of Appeal observed that the SLMC has no power to take over the functions of the Higher Education Minister and further observed that the SLMC had acted in violation of section 19 of the Medical Ordinance when making regulations relating to SAITM. The Court further held that the SLMC had acted in violation of the Medical Ordinance without having any power to do so. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed with cost.
The Court of Appeal had made this order pursuant to writ petition filed by Dhilmi Kasunda Malshani Suriyarachchi, a MBBS graduate of SAITM.
The petitioner Dhilmi Kasunda Malshani Suriyarachchi filed this writ petition seeking an order quashing the decision of the SLMC to refuse registration as a medical practitioner to the petitioner.
On October 5, 2016, the Court of Appeal rejected a request made by 13 parties including the Government Medical Officers Association (GMOA) to intervene into a writ petition.
Suriyarachchi stated that she was awarded an MBBS Second Class Upper Division Degree from SAITM on June 1, 2016.
The petitioner further said on or about August 30, 2011, the former Minister of Higher Education recognised SAITM as a degree awarding institute for the purpose of developing higher education therein leading to the awarding of the MBBS degree.
On or about June 6, 2016, the petitioner applied to the SLMC in terms of section 29 (2) of the Medical Ordinance for provisional registration as a medical practitioner for the purpose of acquiring the necessary experience required for obtaining a certificate under section 32. The petitioner stated that a letter issued by the SLMC President that students from SAITM were not registrable, and that the same was communicated publicly through several newspaper advertisements.
President’s Counsel Romesh de Silva with Sugath Caldera appeared for the respondent. Deputy Solicitor General Viraj Dayaratne appeared on behalf of the Attorney General.