Sumanthiran calls for full SC bench, says Chief Justice ‘conflicted’ in 22A case

By The Pulseline News Desk

A major legal challenge over the Government’s proposed 22^nd Amendment to the Constitution took a new turn today when President’s Counsel M.A. Sumanthiran had called for the matter to be heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court (SC), instead of the current five-judge bench.

The submission was made when SC/SD/28/2026, one of the petitions challenging the proposed constitutional amendment, was taken up before the five-judge bench.

Sumanthiran, appearing for the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) together with more than 80 junior counsel, had argued that the matter warranted consideration by the Full Court, particularly given the constitutional and institutional implications of the legislation.

There are currently 13 sitting judges in the Supreme Court, meaning the five-judge bench presently hearing the petitions comprises fewer than half of the Court.

In a particularly pointed submission, Sumanthiran had told the bench that the Chief Justice was “doubly conflicted” in the matter.

He had argued that, given the circumstances, the Chief Justice should not have a role in “picking and choosing judges” to constitute the bench hearing the challenge.

The submission comes amid intense scrutiny of the manner in which the petitions challenging the Government’s proposed 22^nd Amendment are being heard, with 67 petitions filed before the Supreme Court.

The issue of the composition of the bench was itself considered by the five-judge bench.

Earlier today, proceedings had already been delayed after the courtroom designated for the hearing became severely overcrowded.

The five-judge bench initially convened in Court No. 502, where lawyers, petitioners and other attendees filled the courtroom beyond capacity. Following a request by Sumanthiran to move the proceedings to the larger Ceremonial Court, Court No. 501, supported by several senior counsel including President’s Counsel Saliya Peiris and President’s Counsel Geoffrey Alagaratnam, the bench agreed to relocate.

The hearing eventually commenced close to 11 a.m.

More than 100 lawyers have marked appearances on behalf of the BASL, reflecting the exceptional legal interest surrounding the proposed amendment.

The proceedings were subsequently adjourned for 15 minutes at 12.05 p.m.

When the Court resumed, the five-judge bench had decided to proceed with consideration of the application calling for the matter to be heard by a Full Court.

The development adds another significant layer to the legal battle over the proposed 22^nd Amendment, which has already attracted strong opposition from sections of the legal profession and civil society over its implications for the judiciary.

The Supreme Court is currently considering the constitutional challenges to the Bill and will ultimately communicate its determination to Parliament.