By The Pulseline News Desk
The Government’s move to extend the retirement age of judges triggered a heated confrontation in Parliament today, with Opposition members of Parliament (MPs) staging a protest and accusing the Government of taking steps that could undermine democracy and judicial independence.
Justice and National Integration Minister Harshana Nanayakkara tabled the proposed 22nd Amendment to the Constitution and the Judicature (Amendment) Bill in Parliament today, setting the stage for a legal and political battle over the proposed changes.
The draft constitutional amendment seeks to raise the retirement age of Supreme Court judges from 65 to 67 years, while increasing the retirement age of Court of Appeal judges from 63 to 65 years.
The accompanying Judicature (Amendment) Bill proposes corresponding changes to the retirement ages of judges serving in the lower courts.
The Government has maintained that the reforms are aimed at addressing the shortage of judicial officers and strengthening the capacity of the country’s judicial system at a time when courts continue to face significant caseloads.
However, the tabling of the legislation immediately drew strong resistance from the Opposition.
Opposition MPs, led by Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa, demonstrated their protest in Parliament, describing the proposed legislation as a threat to democratic governance and declaring that it represented the “death of democracy.”
The move also led to considerable commotion in the Chamber, as Opposition MPs raised a series of points of order following the tabling of the Bills.
The controversy comes amid growing concern over the Government’s proposal to alter the retirement framework applicable to judges of the superior courts. Critics have questioned whether extending the tenure of serving judges could have implications for the independence and institutional balance of the judiciary.
The Government, however, has argued that the amendments are administrative and institutional measures intended to ensure the continued availability of experienced judicial officers and address shortages within the judiciary.
The proposed constitutional amendment will now be subject to the constitutional review process.
The Bills can be challenged before the Supreme Court within 14 days of being presented to Parliament. Any such challenge could determine whether the proposed constitutional amendment requires approval by a special majority in Parliament and, depending on the Supreme Court’s determination, potentially a referendum.
The dispute is therefore likely to move beyond Parliament in the coming days, with the proposed extension of judicial retirement ages emerging as a major test for the Government’s approach to judicial reform.
For the Government, the legislation is being presented as an attempt to strengthen an overstretched judicial system. For the Opposition, it has become a broader question of judicial independence and the constitutional safeguards surrounding the judiciary.
The competing positions are expected to intensify as the Bills proceed through the constitutional and parliamentary processes.
Leave a comment