By The Pulseline News Desk
The Government has pushed back against concerns raised by a United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur over proposed changes to the retirement age of judges, insisting that the controversial 22nd Amendment is part of a wider effort to reduce case backlogs, improve access to justice and retain judicial expertise.
In a six-page response sent to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on August 21, the Government has rejected suggestions that the reforms were designed to extend the tenure of particular judges or alter the composition of the judiciary for political purposes.
The response followed concerns raised by UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers Margaret Satterthwaite on August 7. She had warned that applying the proposed changes to serving judges could raise questions about judicial independence, separation of powers and public confidence in the courts.
Under the proposed constitutional amendment, the retirement age of Supreme Court judges would increase from 65 to 67, while Court of Appeal judges would retire at 65 instead of 63.
The Chief Justice would retire at 67 or after completing six years as Chief Justice, whichever comes first.
The Government has also proposed increasing the maximum number of Court of Appeal judges from 19 to 24.
Separately, the Judicature (Amendment) Bill seeks to raise the retirement age of High Court judges from 61 to 63, set the retirement age of other judges and magistrates at 62, and increase the maximum number of High Court judges from 110 to 120.
Both Bills were presented to Parliament on August 18.
Government defends changes
Addressing the central criticism that the amendments could benefit particular judges, the Government has said they “have not been proposed to prolong mandates of specific members of the superior courts” or to alter the judiciary for immediate institutional purposes.
Instead, it has argued that Sri Lanka’s growing judicial workload requires both additional judicial capacity and the retention of experienced judges.
The Government has also defended applying the proposed retirement ages to judges already serving, saying that excluding them would undermine the objective of retaining experienced judicial officers during the planned expansion of the courts.
It has further maintained that the amendments would not give the Executive power to decide which judges receive extended tenure, remove judges because of their rulings, direct proceedings or interfere with judicial decisions.
According to the Government, changing mandatory retirement ages through the constitutionally prescribed legislative process does not in itself violate Sri Lanka’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) or internationally recognised principles of judicial independence.
Supreme Court decision awaited
The dispute has now moved beyond the political and diplomatic arena, with several petitions filed before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the proposed legislation.
The Government has told the UN that it would not prejudge the Supreme Court’s decision and would “fully respect” whatever determination the Court makes.
The issue has also brought the Government into confrontation with the legal profession, with the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) opposing the proposed changes and challenging their constitutionality.
The Government has nevertheless maintained that judicial independence remains a core principle of its reform agenda.
The controversy now places the proposed amendments at the intersection of two competing arguments: the Government’s claim that Sri Lanka needs experienced judges and greater judicial capacity to tackle delays, and concerns that changing retirement rules while judges are already in office could affect perceptions of judicial independence.
The Supreme Court’s determination is therefore likely to become a crucial test of how far the Government can pursue its proposed judicial reforms while maintaining confidence in the independence of the judiciary.
Leave a comment