Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa cited a previous Supreme Court determination to argue that any constitutional amendment changing the retirement age of senior judges would require a referendum, challenging the government's proposed reform.
Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa raised concerns in Parliament on Tuesday regarding the government's plan to extend the retirement age of Supreme Court judges, referencing a 2022 Supreme Court determination that such changes would require popular approval through a referendum.
Speaking under parliamentary Standing Order 27(2), Premadasa cited the court's assessment of the Inland Revenue (Amendment) Bill, which established that judges' retirement age is a constitutionally protected provision. According to the determination quoted by Premadasa, any amendment affecting the retirement age of Supreme Court or Court of Appeal judges currently in office would compromise judicial independence and violate Article 3 of the Constitution, thereby necessitating a referendum.
The proposal to extend judges' retirement age has already drawn opposition from multiple quarters. The Bar Association of Sri Lanka and various local and international legal bodies have publicly opposed the move, according to Premadasa. He further questioned why the government had not pursued broader systemic judicial reforms despite access to a 2023 Ministry of Justice report developed with Asian Development Bank technical support, which outlined comprehensive recommendations for improving court efficiency.
Premadasa challenged the government's approach by noting that extending retirement age alone would not resolve the substantial backlog of approximately 1.1 million pending cases in the judiciary. He called on the government to engage with relevant stakeholders and explain how this specific measure would address systemic judicial challenges before proceeding with any constitutional amendment.
