By The Pulseline News Desk
The Government is moving ahead with its controversial proposal to extend the retirement age of judges, with Cabinet Spokesman, Minister Nalinda Jayatissa announcing that the 22nd Constitutional Amendment Bill is expected to become law by the end of September or early October.
Jayatissa told reporters that the Bill would be presented to Parliament on Tuesday (18), setting in motion the constitutional process that could determine the future retirement age of judges serving in the higher judiciary.
The announcement comes amid growing opposition to the proposed amendment, with the Chief Prelates, the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL), opposition political parties and several international organisations raising concerns over the move.
Bill to face Supreme Court scrutiny
According to Jayatissa, the presentation of the Bill will open the way for members of the public to challenge its constitutionality before the Supreme Court.
Once the Bill is presented, citizens will have the opportunity to file petitions challenging the proposed legislation within the constitutionally prescribed period.
The Supreme Court will then consider the petitions and determine whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the Constitution.
The Court’s determination will subsequently be communicated to Parliament.
Jayatissa said one of the key issues before the Supreme Court would be whether the Bill can be passed with a two-thirds majority in Parliament or whether it would require approval at a referendum.
“The Supreme Court will decide whether the Bill requires a two-thirds majority in Parliament or must also be approved through a referendum,” he said.
Government signals no retreat
The Government’s decision to set a firm September–October timeframe indicates that it intends to proceed with the amendment once the Supreme Court completes its constitutional review.
Jayatissa said that after the Court communicates its determination to Parliament, the Government plans to move forward with the enactment of the Bill.
This effectively places the next stage of the controversy in the hands of the Supreme Court, while also setting the stage for a potentially significant parliamentary debate over the proposed constitutional change.
The Government has maintained that the legislative process will be followed, with the Supreme Court determining the required parliamentary threshold and whether a referendum would be necessary.
Opposition widens
The proposed extension of judges’ retirement age has already triggered a wider debate over judicial independence, constitutional safeguards and the separation of powers.
The BASL has opposed the proposed change, while the country’s Chief Prelates have also expressed concerns.
Opposition political parties have joined the criticism, while several international organisations have raised questions over the proposal.
The controversy has therefore moved beyond a question of retirement policy and into a broader political and constitutional dispute.
Critics are particularly focused on whether changing the retirement age of judges through a constitutional amendment could have implications for the composition and independence of the higher judiciary.
Parliament faces crucial decision
With the Bill scheduled to be presented to Parliament, the Government is now preparing for a process involving three key stages: Supreme Court review, parliamentary consideration and, depending on the Court’s determination, potentially a referendum.
If the Supreme Court determines that a two-thirds majority is sufficient, the Government will swiftly get the required parliamentary support to pass the amendment given its two-thirds plus majority in the House.
If the Court determines that the proposed change requires approval by the people, the process would become significantly more politically consequential.
For the Government, however, the message is clear: despite the mounting opposition, it intends to proceed.
The coming weeks could therefore become a decisive test of the Government’s constitutional reform agenda, judicial policy and its ability to secure political support for a proposal that has already generated strong resistance from within and outside the legal and political establishment.
Leave a comment