Hon. (Dr.) Nalinda Jayatissa - Minister of Health and Mass Media and Chief Government Whip

¶ 01 Hon. Deputy Chairperson of Committees, I thank Hon. Chamara Sampath Dissanayake, MP, for bringing this issue concerning these students to Parliament. In fact, when a matter like this is placed before a Member of Parliament—be it from the Government or the Opposition—it is the responsibility of a public representative to bring it to Parliament and strive for relief. However, the issue here is this: institutions such as the Council of Legal Education and the Sri Lanka Medical Council are tasked with setting standards to safeguard the quality and professionalism of the respective professions. Hon. Nizam Kariapper correctly pointed that out, and those institutions are bound to that responsibility.

¶ 02 Hon. Deputy Chairperson of Committees, therefore, if the Ministry of Justice or the Ministry of Higher Education attempts to interfere, it raises concerns about preserving the quality of the profession. Let me give an example. There are dozens of foreign medical graduates who cannot obtain registration from the Sri Lanka Medical Council. Some of them, even after 10 or 15 years, repeatedly sit for exams and fail certain papers; they come to us and say: “Just give us registration; we do not need to enter the public service—we will practise somewhere privately.” This is a similar situation. But that does not mean we can put pressure on the Council of Legal Education. Especially, it is neither appropriate nor proper for a Ministry to do so.

¶ 03 There are several points here, Hon. Deputy Chairperson of Committees. One is the Extraordinary Gazette bearing No. 2332/02 dated 15 May 2023. It is under that Gazette that this special examination—2111140133—arises, and it is signed not by the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Higher Education, but on behalf of the Incorporated Council of Legal Education. When this exam was held in 2024, 47 candidates sat for it; however, none passed. In 2025, 225 candidates sat and 140 passed. That means, out of 225 candidates for one exam, 140 passed. In other words, about 63 percent of the students passed by obtaining more than 40 percent in each of the three subjects—Administrative Law, Law of Contracts, and Commercial Law. Therefore, arguing that there is some inherent problem with the examination is not very reasonable, because nearly two-thirds have scored above 40 in each subject. The requirement is to obtain at least 40 percent in every subject.

¶ 04 The intake capacity is 201 candidates—meaning admissions can only be made up to the standard capacity; you cannot exceed the normal intake. Generally, in a professional body such as the Council of Legal Education, there is no concept of admitting all who sit regardless of whether they have fulfilled the professional requirements. If that were done, I believe the quality would inevitably decline.

¶ 05 There is an issue raised by 20 students regarding the paper on the Law of Contracts. In my view, the fair solution—which Hon. Nizam Kariapper also proposed and which we too suggest—is that if any injustice has occurred to these students, the matter should be considered by the Council of Legal Education chaired by the Chief Justice. Rather than the Ministry of Justice, the Department of Examinations, or the Ministry of Higher Education issuing directives in this matter, which could set a wrong precedent for the future, we recognize that these students have a concern. They have studied abroad, obtained degrees, and now have failed to secure the required 40 percent in one subject—some say they scored between 35 and 39 percent—and as a result are losing the opportunity to become lawyers. The right and full freedom to make a decision after considering this should be given to the Council of Legal Education. I believe that the Council, chaired by the Hon. Chief Justice, taking into account both the dignity of the legal profession and the situation of these students, will provide a fair solution.