The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka is currently tasked with determining the legality of a proposed constitutional amendment seeking to extend the retirement age of judges, including those serving on the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal. A five-judge bench is examining whether the amendment requires only a two-thirds parliamentary majority or if it also necessitates approval via a public referendum.
The government’s move to extend judicial retirement ages has sparked widespread debate and opposition across legal, religious, and professional sectors. Critics argue that the proposed 22nd Amendment compromises the independence of the judiciary by potentially benefiting sitting judges directly, raising concerns about conflicts of interest and adherence to principles that judges should not preside over matters affecting their own positions.
The Sri Lanka Bar Association has emerged as a central voice in opposition, denouncing the amendment as a threat to judicial impartiality and the rule of law. Their position has been reinforced by a coalition of more than 40 professional organizations and trade unions, including the Federation of University Teachers’ Associations, Government Medical Officers’ Association, and the Railway Station Masters’ Union, among others. These groups jointly issued a statement cautioning that extending judges’ tenure could undermine democratic governance, sovereignty, and the constitutional separation of powers.
Religious leaders from diverse communities have also condemned the amendment. The Mahanayakes of the three Nikayas, along with representatives from the Anglican Church of Ceylon and the Conference of Catholic Bishops, have publicly opposed the measure, underscoring the broad societal concern regarding potential erosion of judicial integrity.
Despite mounting resistance, government officials maintain that prolonging judges’ service is essential to retaining experienced jurists whose expertise remains valuable beyond the current retirement threshold. Some observers note the irony in the government’s shifting stance, pointing to the opposition party Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna’s (JVP) earlier criticism of older officials, which contrasts with their current acceptance of extended judicial tenure.
Recent judicial retirements highlight the issue’s immediacy. Justice Gurusinghe retired from the Court of Appeal on September 1 after three decades on the bench, having awaited promotion to the Supreme Court—a recommendation endorsed by former Chief Justice Murdu Fernando that remains unacted upon. Four vacancies on the Supreme Court bench remain unfilled.
Legal analysts suggest that the judiciary faces a complex challenge, needing to balance legal precedent and constitutional interpretation while confronting the personal implications of the amendment for sitting judges. The case has attracted significant national and international attention, raising questions about Sri Lanka’s commitment to judicial independence amid ongoing political pressures.
As deliberations continue, stakeholders across the legal community and civil society are closely monitoring the Supreme Court’s verdict, which will have far-reaching consequences for the country’s governance, rule of law, and democratic institutions.