Pivithuru Hela Urumaya leader Udaya Gammanpila has contested the government's rationale for the proposed 22nd Amendment, citing the composition of the Supreme Court bench hearing challenges to the Bill as evidence that judicial experience may not be the primary consideration in such decisions.
The Supreme Court commenced hearings on Tuesday to consider petitions challenging the proposed 22nd Amendment. A five-member bench led by Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena was constituted to hear the cases, alongside Justices Achala Wengappuli, Arjuna Obeyesekere, Sampath Abayakoon, and Gihan Kulatunga.
Following the proceedings, Pivithuru Hela Urumaya leader Udaya Gammanpila raised concerns about the bench's composition. According to Gammanpila, several of the most senior judges in the Supreme Court were not included in the bench, while one of the most junior judges was appointed. He argued that this arrangement contradicted the government's stated reasoning for the amendment.
The government has publicly justified the 22nd Amendment as a measure to retain judges with greater experience by extending their retirement age by two years. However, Gammanpila contended that the bench's composition demonstrated that seniority and extended experience were not necessarily decisive factors when constituting important constitutional benches.
Gamemanpila characterized the bench selection as a "knock" to the government's argument, though the Chief Justice has not made any public statement regarding the matter. The opposition leader's remarks suggest that questions about the amendment's actual purpose may persist as the Court continues its examination of the constitutional challenge.