Contempt charge on Dr. Padeniya: CA fixes for order on 6 December

By S.S. Selvanayagam

The Court of Appeal yesterday (10) fixed for order on 6 December in respect of the alleged offence of contempt of Court against the Government Medical Officers’ Association (GMOA) President Dr. Anuruddha Padeniya.

The Bench comprised Justices L.T.B. Dehideniya (President/CA) and A.L.S. Gooneratne.

The charge sheet had been read to the Respondent Padeniya in the open court and issued notice to show cause as to why he should be punished for the alleged offence. He pleaded not guilty.

Gamini Marapana PC with Navin Marapana appeared for Dr Padeniya. Upul Jayasuriya with Chandimal Rajapakse and Lakna Seniviratne instructed by Chitrananda Liyanage appeared for the Petitioners.

The Convener of the National Movement for Social Justice (NMS) Prof. Sarath Wijesuriya and the Co-Convener of the Puravesi Balaya (Citizens’ Power) Gamini Viyangoda filed the contempt application against Dr. Anuruddha Padeniya.

Petitioners state the Court of Appeal delivered the judgment on 31 January 2017 inter alia issuing a Writ of Mandamus compelling the Sri Lanka Medical Council (SLMC) to register the MBBS graduates of the South Asian Institute of Technology and Medicine (SAITM) provisionally as medical practitioners and also issued a Writ of Prohibition preventing it from refusing to register the MBBS graduates of SAITM.



They state the GMOA has condemned and/or openly criticised the said judgment demanding to annul and/or set aside it.

They further state the GMOA has called for a national front and trade union action against the SAITM following the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

They state the GMOA on 7 April 2017 had organised a protest march and delivered a speech in which the Respondent delivered a speech and made deliberate, malicious and contemptuous statements in relation to the Court process, judgment and the conduct of the Judges as well as the Attorney General.

They state that in an interview GMOA Secretary Dr. Nalinda Soysa said the President should exercise his executive powers to quash the Appeal Court ruling.

They allege the conduct of the Respondent obstructs the due administration of justice coercing other authorities to apply pressure on the Court.

They are seeking the Court to deal with the Respondent and punish him for committing the offense of alleged contempt of court.