The Sri Lankan Government, led by the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) under the National People's Power (NPP) banner, has defended the controversial 22nd Amendment to the Constitution amidst criticism in Parliament this week. The Government accused opponents of manufacturing unfounded fears about the amendment, which primarily seeks to increase the retirement age of Supreme Court and other senior judges.
However, critics and observers place significant responsibility on the Government itself for the controversy, citing a lack of transparency. The amendment was introduced abruptly, with details kept secret until it was suddenly announced after Cabinet approval. This approach, critics argue, deviated sharply from normal constitutional reform procedures, which typically involve stakeholder consultations and public engagement.
The 22nd Amendment has quickly become part of Sri Lanka’s contentious history of constitutional changes perceived as politically motivated. While the amendment’s core objective—raising judges' retirement ages—would not be extraordinary within a routine reform process, its manner of introduction and the broader political context have fueled mistrust.
The Supreme Court, tasked solely with assessing the amendment’s constitutionality, ruled that the 22nd Amendment did not require public approval through a referendum as per Article 83 of the Constitution. The Court’s decisive ruling came in response to more than seventy petitions challenging the amendment. Among the principal objections was that the change would grant direct financial benefits to sitting judges, potentially compromising judicial independence and undermining the sovereignty of the people guaranteed under Article 3.
Critics further suggested the amendment was part of a strategy toward ‘court packing’—appointing judges sympathetic to the Government’s interests. Some petitioners even alleged conflicts of interest among judges hearing the case, calling for their prosecution under anti-corruption laws. The Supreme Court firmly rejected these accusations, characterizing them as baseless attacks on the judiciary’s integrity and an attempt to intimidate the bench. The Court emphasized that judges’ individual interests do not override the institutional authority of the judiciary.
The Court also distinguished between increasing and reducing judges’ tenure, ruling that the amendment’s extension of retirement age did not constitute an inducement or threat requiring a public referendum. While previous decisions held that reducing judges’ tenure triggered constitutional protections, this extension was deemed non-discriminatory and non-discretionary. The bench criticized petitioners for attributing self-serving motives to judges, describing such assumptions as unfair and demoralizing.
The Court declined calls for a referendum as a solution, asserting its duty to uphold constitutional mandates rather than seek elegant political compromises. It also dismissed claims that a failure to consult stakeholders undermined the amendment’s legitimacy, noting no legal requirement exists for such consultations.
Nonetheless, the controversy exposed deeper tensions between the Government and judicial institutions. Legal experts contend that while the Court’s narrow jurisdiction limits its role, a wider political debate and consultation on constitutional amendments remain crucial to maintaining public trust. The Government’s decision to push forward amid warnings from judicial and legal bodies has placed the judiciary in a difficult position, having to defend its independence publicly.
President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, when challenged by the Bar Association of Sri Lanka to reconsider the amendment, expressed firm resolve to proceed “for the people,” emphasizing his willingness to face potential risks. As the amendment becomes part of Sri Lanka’s constitutional record, its political and institutional ramifications are likely to influence the country’s governance and rule-of-law landscape in the years ahead.