City Coroners and Hospital Coroners in professional impasse

By T. Farook Thajudeen

The Supreme Court ordered the Attorney General to ascertain whether a Gazette notification made on 6 May 2011 by the Secretary of Justice Ministry indicating the eligibility of persons to be appointed Hospital Coroners was still in force or revoked. 

The Supreme Court made this direction to the Attorney General after considering an application filed under Article 126 of the Constitution by City Coroners M. Ashroff Rumy and Iresha Darshanee Samaraweera against nine Respondents, including National Hospital coroners U. L.G. Athura and A. L. M. Maharoof.

In the application, the Petitioners had requested a permanent injunction preventing the two Hospital Coroners U.L.G. Athura and A.L.M. Maharoof from acting as Additional City Coroners.

They had also requested an interim order restraining the two Hospital Coroners from acting as Additional City Coroners.

The Petitioners claim that the two appointments were made by the 1st Respondent, Minister of Justice, the 2nd and the 3rd Respondents, the Secretary and the Assistant Secretary of the Ministry of Justice, thereby violating the criteria for appointing Additional City Coroners.

They alleged that only Attorneys-at-law should hold that position as there was a practice of appointing only lawyers for the post.

However, Senior Counsel Ian Fernando, with Sumudu Ratnayake, appearing for the two Respondent Hospital Coroners, objected to the stance of the City Coroners, contending that the petition is a misconception of the law and had deliberately suppressed or misrepresented material facts.

The Counsel said the Petitioners had not come with clean hands before the court. 

The Respondents’ Counsel emphasised that his clients had functioned as Colombo National Hospital Coroners and not as Additional City Coroners from 16 January 2012 at the Colombo National Hospital, as per the Gazette notification issued by the Justice Ministry.

He highlighted the fact that all the Government hospitals have Hospital Coroners selected from eligible candidates who are not Attorneys-at-law and are called Hospital Coroners rather than Additional City Coroners.

He also stressed the fact that the Hospital Coroner appointments were made in terms of the Gazette notification dated 6 May 2011 after an interview held to serve for five years.

The Counsel said his clients had already performed more than 300 inquests as National Hospital Coroners and not as City Coroners. He underscored the fact that there is no merit in delaying the holding of inquest by the restraining order and requested it be vacated.