Contempt charge against Dr. Padeniya: CA re-fixes inquiry for 4 Sept.

Wednesday, 6 June 2018 00:00 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}

By S.S. Selvanayagam

The Court of Appeal yesterday re-fixed for 4 September the inquiry against Government Medical Officers’ Association (GMOA) President Dr. Anuruddha Padeniya for alleged Contempt of Court.

The bench comprised justices P. Padman Surasena (CA President) and Arjuna Obeysekera.

Gamini Marapana PC with Navin Marapana appeared for Dr. Padeniya. Upul Jayasuriya PC with Chandimal Rajapakse, Lakna Seniviratne and Reshaal Seresinghe, instructed by Chitrananda Liyanage, appeared for the petitioners. Deputy Solicitor General Viraj Dayaratne appeared for the Attorney General.

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

The petitioners state that 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 that the GMOA has condemned and openly criticised the judgment demanding that it be annulled or set aside.

They further stated that the GMOA had called for a national front and trade union action against SAITM following the Court of Appeal’s judgment.

They state that the GMOA on 7 April 2017 had organised a protest march and delivered a speech in which the respondent made 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 that the conduct of the respondent obstructs the due administration of justice, coercing other authorities to apply pressure on the Court. They are petitioning Court to deal with the respondent and punish him for alleged Contempt of Court.