By The Pulseline News Desk
The Government has pressed ahead with one of its most contentious judicial reform proposals, with the Cabinet approving a constitutional amendment to raise the retirement age of judges by two years despite mounting opposition from within the legal fraternity, the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL), and even a senior member of the ruling National People’s Power (NPP).
The proposal, which must now be approved by Parliament with a two-thirds majority, has reignited debate over judicial independence, executive influence, and the future direction of Sri Lanka’s justice system.
With the NPP Government commanding the numbers needed to amend the Constitution, the proposal appears likely to pass. However, resistance from judges, lawyers, and constitutional experts has intensified, with critics arguing that the issue goes beyond retirement ages and strikes at the institutional integrity of the judiciary.
Internal dissent
The latest challenge to the proposal came from veteran lawyer Lal Wijenayake, a member of both the NPP Leadership Council and Executive Council, who publicly distanced himself from the Government’s decision.
Speaking at a media briefing alongside President’s Counsel and senior lawyers, Wijenayake insisted that the proposal had never been discussed or approved by the party’s decision-making bodies.
“I am a member of the NPP Leadership Council and Executive Council. No decision of this nature to extend the retirement age of judges has been taken at any NPP Executive Council or any other council that I am part of,” he said.
His remarks are significant because they raise questions about how the proposal was formulated and whether it followed the collective decision-making process that the NPP has repeatedly said distinguishes it from previous administrations.
Wijenayake went further, claiming that when he questioned the proposal internally, he was simply told to remain silent.
“When I asked about this, I was told to keep my mouth shut,” he claimed.
A widening legal backlash
Earlier this month, the Judicial Service Association of Sri Lanka (JSASL), representing District Judges and Magistrates, formally opposed the proposal in a letter to the Justice Ministry, warning that extending retirement ages could undermine judicial independence, disrupt career progression within the judiciary, and weaken public confidence in the courts.
The BASL has also voiced reservations, arguing that any constitutional amendment affecting judges must be based on broad consultation rather than expediency.
Senior lawyers have questioned why the Government is seeking to alter retirement ages at this stage, particularly when there has been no publicly articulated judicial reform strategy explaining the necessity for the change.
Critics argue that while increasing retirement ages is not inherently problematic, doing so through a constitutional amendment without transparent justification creates unnecessary suspicion.
Government’s position
Although the Government has not publicly detailed its full rationale, officials have previously argued that retaining experienced judges for a longer period could help strengthen the administration of justice and improve continuity within the superior courts.
Supporters of the proposal also point to increasing life expectancy and international examples where judges serve beyond Sri Lanka’s current retirement threshold.
However, opponents counter that such changes should form part of a comprehensive judicial reform package rather than a standalone constitutional amendment.
Political implications
The issue has evolved into more than a debate over retirement ages.
For the opposition, it presents an opportunity to portray the Government as departing from the governance principles it championed while in opposition. For critics within the legal profession, the proposal has become a test of whether constitutional changes affecting the judiciary are being pursued through consultation or executive preference.
As the constitutional amendment moves to Parliament, attention is likely to shift from the technical question of retirement ages to the broader issue of how judicial reforms should be designed, debated, and implemented in a system where public confidence in institutional independence remains a sensitive and closely watched issue.
Leave a comment