By The Pulseline News Desk
Sri Lanka’s proposed constitutional amendment to raise the retirement age of judges in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal has ignited a wider debate over judicial independence, constitutional governance and the future of democratic institutions.
What the Government presents as an administrative reform has instead become a political flashpoint, drawing sharp criticism from Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa, the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL), members of the legal fraternity and constitutional observers, who argue that changes affecting the country’s highest courts require broad public consultation and compelling institutional justification.
Opposition raises alarm
Addressing a public lecture organised by the Samagi Lawyers’ Association at the Sri Lanka Foundation Institute on Sunday (19), Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa accused the National People’s Power (NPP) Government of pursuing constitutional changes that threaten judicial independence and democratic governance.
The proposed amendment seeks to increase the retirement age of Supreme Court judges from 65 to 67 years and Court of Appeal judges from 63 to 65 years.
Premadasa argued that extending the tenure of superior court judges without a transparent national discussion risks weakening public confidence in the judiciary. He claimed the move forms part of a broader effort to concentrate power rather than strengthen democratic institutions.
He questioned why the Government was prioritising this constitutional amendment while making no progress on abolishing the Executive Presidency, noting that ministers had previously denied any intention to introduce such changes when questioned in Parliament.
Drawing on constitutional and legal history, Premadasa referred to the Magna Carta, the evolution of English common law, the United States Constitution of 1787, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1985 UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary. He argued that democracies derive their strength from an independent judiciary, separation of powers and effective checks and balances.
“The stronger the independence of the judiciary, the stronger democracy becomes,” he said, urging citizens across political affiliations to oppose measures he described as undermining democratic governance.
Premadasa also warned that constitutional changes perceived as weakening the rule of law could have wider economic consequences, potentially affecting Sri Lanka’s engagement with international institutions, including the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and trade benefits such as the European Union’s (EU) GSP+ concession.
He concluded by stating that Sri Lanka must avoid returning to periods in which judicial independence was compromised.
BASL calls for consultation
The BASL meanwhile has similarly urged caution, calling on the Government to suspend further action until extensive consultations are completed.
In a letter dated July 16 to Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara, the BASL said the proposal raises significant constitutional issues with implications for judicial independence, the administration of justice and the rule of law.
The association revealed that it had previously written to the Justice Minister on March 30 seeking clarification on reports of the proposal and later communicated its opposition directly to President Anura Kumara Dissanayake on May 25. According to the BASL, neither letter had received a response.
The legal body questioned whether there is any demonstrated institutional need for increasing judges’ retirement ages, noting that Parliament had already expanded the number of judges serving in both the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal in recent years to address case backlogs and workload concerns.
It argued that a constitutional amendment appearing to extend the tenure of current judges without broader institutional justification could undermine public confidence in the independence of the judiciary and create perceptions that the reform is motivated by considerations other than judicial efficiency.
The BASL further maintained that constitutional amendments affecting superior courts should not be introduced on an ad hoc basis but only after transparent public justification and meaningful consultation with all stakeholders.
According to the association, the proposal has already generated concern among sitting members of the judiciary, retired judges, senior legal practitioners, academics and international legal organisations.
Call for an independent review
Referring to statements made following the Cabinet meeting on July 14, the BASL noted that the Ministry of Justice had been instructed to submit its observations before Cabinet reaches a final decision.
The association urged the Ministry to ensure that the perspectives of all principal stakeholders are incorporated into that process.
As an alternative to proceeding directly with constitutional amendments, the BASL has proposed establishing a committee comprising representatives of the Ministry of Justice, the Judiciary, the BASL and other relevant stakeholders to conduct a comprehensive study of the proposal.
The association has also requested a meeting with the Justice Minister and called for no further steps to be taken until meaningful consultations have been completed.
Constitutional debate beyond retirement ages
Although the amendment concerns judicial retirement ages, the debate has evolved into a broader discussion about constitutional reform, institutional independence and public trust.
Supporters of judicial independence argue that any constitutional change affecting the country’s highest courts must not only be legally sound but also command public confidence through openness, consultation and clear institutional necessity.
With opposition parties, the legal profession and civil society now closely scrutinising the proposal, the Government faces growing pressure to demonstrate both the rationale behind the amendment and its compatibility with the principles of judicial independence and democratic accountability.
As discussions continue, the controversy underscores a longstanding reality in Sri Lanka’s constitutional landscape: reforms affecting the judiciary are rarely viewed as administrative adjustments alone, but as measures with far-reaching implications for the balance of power and the strength of democratic institutions.
Leave a comment