By The Pulseline News Desk
The legal community has entered a fresh debate over judicial independence following reports that the Government is considering a constitutional amendment to increase the retirement age of judges serving on Sri Lanka’s two highest courts.
In a strongly worded letter to President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) expressed what it described as “grave concern” over the reported proposal, warning that such a move could undermine public confidence in the judiciary and raise questions about the Government’s commitment to preserving the separation of powers.
At the centre of the controversy is a long-standing constitutional framework that has remained unchanged since the adoption of the 1978 Constitution. Under the current provisions, judges of the Court of Appeal retire at the age of 63, while Supreme Court judges retire at 65.
The BASL argues that altering these limits without a compelling institutional justification would be viewed as an arbitrary intervention in the judicial system.
“The independence of the judiciary and the public confidence reposed in it are indispensable pillars of the Rule of Law and the democratic framework of our Republic,” the Association said, stressing that the judiciary must remain free not only from actual influence but also from any perception of political interference.
Questions over timing
The reported proposal comes at a time when judicial appointments and constitutional reforms remain subjects of intense public interest. Legal observers note that any amendment affecting the tenure of judges inevitably attracts scrutiny because of its potential impact on the composition of the country’s highest courts.
The BASL pointed out that the number of judges serving in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal was expanded through the 20th Amendment in 2020, reducing concerns about capacity and workload that might otherwise justify extending retirement ages.
Against that backdrop, the Association questioned whether there is any pressing institutional necessity for such a constitutional change.
Critics argue that amendments affecting judicial tenure, particularly when introduced outside a broader programme of constitutional reform, risk creating the perception that changes are being tailored to benefit specific office holders or influence the future composition of the courts.
A matter of judicial independence
The issue extends beyond retirement ages. For many within the legal profession, the debate touches on a fundamental principle of democratic governance: the independence of the judiciary from the executive and legislature.
The BASL warned that changing retirement ages through ad hoc constitutional amendments could establish a precedent for future governments to alter judicial structures whenever politically convenient.
Such concerns are particularly sensitive in Sri Lanka, where constitutional reforms affecting independent institutions have often generated debate about checks and balances within the state.
Legal analysts note that public trust in the courts depends not only on the decisions judges make but also on confidence that judicial careers, appointments and tenure are insulated from political considerations.
Appeal to the President
In its letter, the BASL urged President Dissanayake not to proceed with any constitutional amendment aimed at extending judicial retirement ages. The Association said preserving the independence, integrity and dignity of the judiciary should remain a national priority.
Whether the Government intends to formally pursue such a proposal remains unclear. However, the BASL’s intervention has already elevated the issue from a constitutional technicality to a broader discussion about judicial independence and the safeguards necessary to maintain public confidence in the rule of law.
As speculation continues, the debate is likely to test the Government’s commitment to institutional reform and its approach to one of the cornerstones of Sri Lanka’s democratic system – the independence of its courts.
Leave a comment