SAITM report before 31 Dec, AG informs SC

The Attorney General on Tuesday informed the Supreme Court that a nine-member committee, appointed to look into the progress of the implementation of the recommendations by the Presidential Committee, is to submit a report pertaining to the South Asian Institute of Technology and Medicine (SAITM) issue before 31 December this year.

Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Rajaratnam, appearing on behalf of the Attorney General, made these remarks when the appeal petition pertaining to the SAITM issue was taken up before the Supreme Court.

On a previous occasion, a majority of a divided three-judge Supreme Court bench granted special leave to appeal a petition filed by the Sri Lanka Medical Council (SLMC) challenging the judgment of the Court of Appeal to register a student of SAITM, Malabe provisionally as a medical practitioner in terms of Section 29(2) of the Medical Ordinance.

The Supreme Court fixed the matter for argument on 23 and 29 January next year.

On a previous occasion, the Supreme Court had allowed Government Medical Officers’ Association (GMOA) to intervene in the appeal filed by the SLMC. Through this appeal petition, the SLMC sought an order to set aside the judgment dated 31 January 2017 by the 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 the Court of Appeal.

Delivering its judgment on the writ petition filed by an MBBS graduate of SAITM, the Court of Appeal on 31 January held that SAITM was 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. The Court of Appeal had observed that the petitioner, the MBBS graduate, has no obstacle to register at the 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 30 August 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 Section 27 of the said Act.

“SAITM is empowered to grant the 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. President’s Counsel Manohara de Silva appeared for the SLMC. President’s Counsel Romesh de Silva with Sugath Caldera appeared for the respondent. Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Rajaratnam PC appeared on behalf of the Attorney General.