President Anura Kumara Dissanayake met with the Bar Association of Sri Lanka regarding the proposed 22nd Amendment to extend mandatory retirement ages for senior judges, but the government appears set to proceed with the amendment despite significant domestic and international criticism.

President Anura Kumara Dissanayake held discussions with a Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) delegation on Wednesday regarding the contentious 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, which would extend the mandatory retirement ages for judges of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal. However, the meeting appears to have yielded little common ground, as the government has already publicly committed to advancing the amendment despite the association's strong objections.

The BASL has maintained its position that the amendment would undermine judicial independence, urging the President to abandon the proposal. According to reporting, the President responded by defending the government's intentions and dismissing suggestions that the amendment was being rushed through before December 2026. He denied allegations that the measure was designed to benefit a particular judge, claiming instead that the judiciary's interests were the primary concern. Key Opposition figures have suggested the government could address these concerns by delaying the amendment until the judge in question retires and then initiating broader consultations.

The amendment has attracted criticism from international bodies including the International Association of Judges, the Commonwealth Lawyers' Association, LAWASIA, and the French National Bar Council. Margaret Satterthwaite, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, has also written to President Dissanayake urging the government to protect judicial independence and credibility. According to media reports, the government plans to present the amendment to Parliament in the coming week.

The BASL has maintained that its opposition is based on principle rather than narrow institutional interests, having previously challenged constitutional measures under previous administrations. The disagreement reflects broader concerns about the balance between executive power and judicial independence in Sri Lanka's governance framework.