The newly elected JVP-led NPP government is drawing widespread opposition, including from allied lawyers, over plans to extend the retirement ages of superior court judges through constitutional amendment, with critics warning the move threatens judicial independence and undermines democratic principles.
The JVP-NPP government, which won a substantial electoral mandate in 2024, is facing mounting criticism over its proposal to extend the retirement ages of judges across Sri Lanka's judiciary. Initially focusing on Court of Appeal and Supreme Court judges, the government has expanded the scope to include all judicial officers, according to media reports. Critics argue the move appears designed to benefit sitting judges who would be affected by the constitutional amendment, raising concerns about potential conflicts of interest.
Legal experts and government allies alike have challenged the proposal's legitimacy. Senior lawyer Lal Wijenayake, a prominent member of the NPP's leadership structure, has publicly opposed the measure, contending it will compromise judicial integrity. According to Wijenayake, the initiative was not submitted for approval within NPP structures. Legal scholars have argued that the constitutional amendment should require both a parliamentary supermajority and approval through public referendum to ensure democratic legitimacy and prevent bias, particularly since affected judges would likely hear petitions against the amendment itself.
The government has justified the extension as a means to address case backlogs, but commentators dispute this rationale. They note that judicial delays stem from multiple factors including unfilled vacancies in superior courts, procedural inefficiencies, resource constraints, and delays from other government agencies such as the Government Analyst's Department and Attorney General's Office. The government has left four positions vacant in each of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, which directly contributes to case congestion.
Observers draw parallels to previous individual-focused constitutional amendments that ultimately damaged the institutions they modified. The 18th Amendment enabled former President Mahinda Rajapaksa to seek a third term, while the 20th Amendment benefited other members of his family. Both amendments were abandoned after regime changes, and their architects face diminished political standing. Critics warn that rushing the judicial amendment without public consultation risks similarly delegitimizing the affected judges and institutions.
