By The Pulseline News Desk
The Government’s proposed 22nd Amendment to the Constitution has triggered an immediate legal challenge, with several petitions filed before the Supreme Court on the same day the Bill was presented to Parliament.
The first petition was filed by Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) Treasurer T.M.S. Pasindu Silva and its Assistant Secretary, seeking a determination that the Bill, if enacted, requires approval by a two-thirds majority in Parliament as well as at a national referendum.
The Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) also moved the Supreme Court, with General Secretary and member of Parliament (M) Ranjith Madduma Bandara filing a petition under SC/SD/31/2026. The petition argues that extending the retirement age of serving judges could affect judicial independence, separation of powers and the sovereignty of the people.
The proposed amendment seeks to increase the retirement age of Supreme Court judges from 65 to 67 years and Court of Appeal judges from 63 to 65 years.
Sarvajana Balaya and the Free Lawyers Organization have also filed petitions challenging the Bill and seeking a determination that it requires both a two-thirds parliamentary majority and approval by referendum.
Former law professor and parliamentarian Prof. G.L. Peiris has separately challenged Clause 2 of the Bill, which deals with the retirement age of Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judges. He argues that applying the change to incumbent judges, including the Chief Justice, could undermine judicial independence and public confidence in the judiciary.
Prof. Peiris has cited several constitutional provisions and previous Supreme Court determinations, arguing that safeguards relating to judicial tenure cannot be altered without the people’s approval.
He has also asked that the matter be heard by a Full Bench of the Supreme Court, citing its exceptional constitutional importance.
The speed and number of petitions filed against the Bill have turned the proposed amendment into an immediate constitutional test for the Government. The Supreme Court’s determination will now be crucial in deciding whether the proposed changes can proceed through Parliament alone or must ultimately face the electorate.
Leave a comment