80
Asks to decide on one of three solutions given by experts
Holds two persons culpable of breach
Declares awarding free marks for three leaked questions as unlawful
The Supreme Court yesterday ordered the Commissioner General of Examinations to forthwith act in accordance with the law and, based on recommendations presented to him by several experts and any other relevant material he may consider, decide on one of three solutions to resolve the breach of confidentiality regarding three questions in Part I of the recent Grade 5 Scholarship Examination.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court ordered the Commissioner General of Examinations to promptly implement such a decision, initiate the commencement and completion of the assessment of answer scripts, finalise the results, and issue such results of the Grade 5 Scholarship Examination.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court declared that the Fundamental Rights of the student candidates and petitioners have been violated by the State by the breach of the integrity of Paper I of the Grade 5 Scholarship Examination conducted on September 15, 2024, due to the breach in confidentiality of three questions. The Supreme Court held that two respondents – I.G.S. Premathilake, a member of the Committee which prepared Paper I of the said examination, and C.M. Chaminda Kumara Ilangasekara – are culpable for such infringement. Meanwhile, the thirteenth respondent, I.G.S. Premathilake, was ordered to pay the State a sum of Rs. 3 million, while the sixth respondent, Chaminda Kumara Ilangasekara, was directed to pay the State Rs. 2 million.
The Supreme Court three-judge bench comprising Justices Yasantha Kodagoda, Kumudini Wickremasinghe, and Arjuna Obeyesekere further declared that the decision of the Commissioner General of Examinations to award free marks for three answers is unlawful. Therefore, the Supreme Court declared that a decision of the Cabinet of Ministers taken at its meeting held on November 25, 2024 endorsing such a decision of the Commissioner General of Examinations, is also not legally valid. The Director of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) was directed to submit to the Director General of the Bribery Commission within two weeks, a detailed report on investigations conducted by the CID, for the purpose of enabling that Commission to consider whether the conduct of I.G.S. Premathilake, a member of the Committee which prepared Paper I, and C.M. Chaminda Kumara Ilangasekara should be investigated for having committed the offences of conspiracy to commit corruption, corruption, and abetment to commit corruption, as defined in the Anti-Corruption Act.
The Commissioner General of Examinations was directed to undertake and carry out a detailed study of the prevailing rules of procedure and practices relating to the conduct of public examinations, the manner in which the integrity of such examinations may have been breached in the past and identify the manner in which the entire public examination process could be strengthened so as to ensure that the integrity of public examinations is not compromised in the future. A report in this regard was ordered to be prepared and submitted to the Supreme Court within three months.
The Attorney-General is directed to provide necessary advice to the CID regarding the investigation being conducted, and following the completion of investigations, expeditiously consider the institution of criminal proceedings against offenders.
I need time to decide on most suitable option: Exams Chief
Exams Chief Amith Jayasundara yesterday said that he needed some time to study the options and decide on the most suitable option following the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the Grade 5 Scholarship Exam.
He made this statement during a special press conference held yesterday (31).
“I received the Supreme Court’s judgement which has 68 pages. The Court has ordered us to implement the most appropriate decision. We are currently studying this in detail. I cannot immediately say which of the three options is the most suitable. We need to study this further,” he said.
OUR COURT CORESPONDENT
