By The Pulseline News Desk
The government’s plan to extend the retirement age of judges has escalated into one of the biggest confrontations between the legal profession and the National People’s Power (NPP) administration, with the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) unanimously rejecting the proposal and warning that it could undermine judicial independence.
The showdown comes despite the Cabinet approving the constitutional amendment on Monday (27), brushing aside concerns raised not only by the BASL but also by the Judicial Service Association of Sri Lanka (JSASL), several President’s Counsel and opposition political parties.
At a specially convened general meeting on Wednesday (29), attended by an estimated 3,000 to 4,000 lawyers in person and online, BASL members voted unanimously against the proposal, delivering one of the strongest collective rebukes the legal profession has directed at the government since it assumed office.
BASL President Rajeev Amarasuriya described the proposed amendment as “unethical” and warned that altering the retirement age of sitting judges could have lasting consequences for the independence and credibility of the judiciary.
In an indication of the seriousness with which the legal fraternity views the issue, the BASL resolved to formally convey its objections to the Minister of Justice and insisted that if the government intended to proceed with the amendment, it should seek public approval through a referendum.
A judiciary divided
The BASL’s opposition follows a similarly strong stance taken by the JSASL, which represents District Judges and Magistrates.
The association has argued that changing retirement ages midway through judicial appointments raises constitutional and institutional concerns, while also affecting career progression within the judiciary.
Critics say the proposal risks creating a perception that constitutional changes are being tailored to benefit individuals rather than strengthen institutions — a perception they argue could damage public confidence in the courts.
The controversy has become particularly sensitive because judicial independence remains one of the key governance issues closely watched by international partners following Sri Lanka’s economic crisis and governance reforms.
Government allies hit back
However, lawyers aligned with the NPP have strongly defended the proposal.
The Lawyers for Public Mandate (LPM) Organisation dismissed accusations that the amendment threatens judicial independence, arguing instead that political actors facing unresolved corruption investigations are attempting to derail long-overdue judicial reforms.
According to the LPM, the proposal seeks to address chronic shortages of judges that have contributed to Sri Lanka’s mounting backlog of court cases.
The Cabinet-approved reforms would increase the retirement age of Supreme Court judges from 65 to 67 years and Court of Appeal judges from 63 to 65.
The Chief Justice would be permitted to remain in office until age 67 or complete six years in office, whichever comes first.
Meanwhile, High Court judges would retire at 63 instead of 61, while Magistrates and District Judges would retire at 62 rather than 60.
The organisation argues that the country simply cannot afford to lose experienced judges while courts continue to struggle with staffing shortages.
Although 110 High Court positions have been approved, only 93 are currently occupied, they noted, adding that additional courts and judicial officers are still needed to improve the administration of justice.
Reform or constitutional gamble?
Government supporters have attempted to strengthen their case by pointing to international practice.
They note that judges retire at 70 in Australia and Denmark, at 75 in Canada and Brazil, while federal judges in the United States have no mandatory retirement age.
They also cite the famous observation by American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. that judicial wisdom is acquired through experience rather than youth.
Yet opponents argue that the debate is not about whether judges should retire later, but whether constitutional office holders should have their tenure altered after appointment.
That distinction, they say, goes to the heart of judicial independence.
Political implications
The dispute has rapidly evolved beyond a technical discussion on retirement ages into a broader debate over constitutional governance and the separation of powers.
For the NPP administration, the amendment forms part of its wider programme of judicial reform and anti-corruption measures aimed at improving efficiency within the justice system.
For the legal profession, however, the manner in which the proposal has been introduced has become the central concern.
With virtually every major representative body of judges and lawyers now publicly opposing the amendment, the government faces mounting pressure to reconsider its approach or risk a prolonged confrontation with one of the country’s most influential independent professions.
Whether the administration presses ahead or opts for wider consultation may determine not only the future of the amendment but also public confidence in the government’s commitment to safeguarding the independence of Sri Lanka’s judiciary.
Leave a comment