Petitioners seeks special determination from SC over Indian engineers

By S.S. Selvanayagam

 President’s Counsel Manohara de Silva last Friday contended that Clause 14 of the Engineering Council Sri Lanka Bill permitted Indian engineers to work in Sri Lanka without any restrictions, which would be detrimental to the profession locally.

Counsel Manohara de Silva made these remarks while delivering his submission on the Bill in the Supreme Court before a bench comprising Chief Justice K. Sripavan and Justices Priyantha Jayawardane and Prasanna S. Jayawardane.

He appeared for a set of 18 petitioners and submitted that in the terms of Clause 14 (1), no engineering practitioner as defined in Section 41 read with schedule A could engage in the practice of the engineering profession unless such an engineering practitioner was registered under Section 15.

He contended that therefore any person who did not fall within the definition of ‘engineering practitioner’ could enter the profession without any restriction and lamented that in the manner in which Clause 14 was drafted, unqualified individuals would have the freedom to work as engineers and as a result the very existence of the engineering profession was under threat.

The Bill was gazetted on 1 August on the direction of the Minister of Power and Renewable Energy Ranjith Siyambalapitiya and placed on the Order Paper of Parliament on 20 September 2016.

De Silva pointed out that nine members out of the 13 on the Engineering Council, which is appointed by the Prime Minister, have to be Chartered Engineers and according to the composition of the Council, Chartered Engineers would form the majority in the Council in violation of the Constitution.

He contended that the power given to the Prime Minister to appoint and remove the Chairman of the Council was also unconstitutional.

He said that all matters to be decided by the Council should be determined by the majority of the members present and through a vote. 

He further submitted that the Bill provides for the creation of an Appeal Board to make an appeal in the instance where registration has been refused by the Council or where registration has been cancelled or suspended.

He also asserted that three out of the five members of the Appeal Board should be Chartered Engineers; therefore even the Appeal Board was statutorily framed in differently treating engineers other than chartered engineers.

He argued that the Bill could not become law unless it was passed by a two-thirds majority and approved by the people through a referendum.

Faisz Musthapha PC with Faiza Markar appeared for the intervenient petition. Deputy Solicitor General Janak de Silva appeared for the State and Attorney General.