Constitutional showdown: 22A term limits threaten public sovereignty, petitioners say

By the Editorial Team · Sunday, September 6, 2026

The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka has begun hearings on petitions challenging the constitutionality of the 22nd Amendment Bill, which proposes raising retirement ages for senior judges and increasing the number of Court of Appeal judges. The court's decision will determine whether the bill requires a two-thirds parliamentary majority and a public referendum, as petitioners argue it could undermine judicial independence and public sovereignty.

The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka has commenced hearings on fundamental rights petitions challenging the constitutionality of the 22nd Amendment Bill, which seeks to raise the retirement ages of senior judges and expand the number of Court of Appeal judges. A five-judge bench, led by Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena, is conducting the hearings following the rejection of a request to consider the petitions before a full bench of the court.

The proposed amendment, introduced to adjust the retirement age of Court of Appeal judges from 63 to 65 and Supreme Court judges from 65 to 67, also establishes a term limit for the Chief Justice, who would retire upon reaching 67 years of age or after serving six years in office, whichever occurs first. Additionally, the bill aims to increase the number of Court of Appeal judges from 19 to 24.

Petitioners have argued that the bill violates the Constitution and have urged the Supreme Court to rule that it requires approval by a two-thirds parliamentary majority as well as a public referendum. They contend that the legislation directly affects the judiciary’s independence and undermines public sovereignty.

Representing the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL), President’s Counsel M A Sumanthiran emphasized that the amendment strikes at the core of the Constitution by posing a threat to the judiciary’s independence. He argued that any constitutional violation, such as the proposed changes, should be subjected to a public referendum.

Ali Sabry, PC, also voiced concerns over the term limits for the Chief Justice, stating they conflict with the sovereignty of the people and could jeopardize judicial independence by enabling greater executive influence. Thisath Wijegunawardena, PC, appearing for the Samagi Jana Balavegaya (SJB), warned that allowing the bill to pass solely through the legislature could create a dangerous precedent, urging for a ruling that a referendum is required.

President’s Counsel Srinath Perera highlighted a potential conflict of interest, noting that because the amendment compels judges to rule on changes that affect their own terms, the public should have the opportunity to decide through a referendum.

Opposing these arguments, Solicitor General Viraj Dayaratte, representing the Attorney General, asserted the bill, along with the Judicature (Amendment) Bill, aims to expand judicial capacity and improve efficiency rather than provide special benefits to any group of judges. He maintained that the draft legislation aligns with the Constitution and does not necessitate a public referendum.

Dayaratte also stressed that the Supreme Court’s role is to assess the bill’s constitutional validity, not to engage in speculation or predictions regarding its impact. The court is expected to deliver its ruling following the completion of a two-day hearing and review of written submissions. The decision will subsequently be communicated to the Speaker of Parliament.

This article was reported by synthesizing coverage from multiple independent news outlets to present a balanced, unbiased account. Read about our editorial standards. Spotted an error? Let us know.