The Supreme Court continued hearings on the second day into petitions challenging the proposed 22nd Constitutional Amendment Bill, with senior lawyers raising concerns about judicial impartiality and the amendment process.
The Supreme Court resumed hearings yesterday on multiple petitions filed against the Government's proposed 22nd Constitutional Amendment Bill, marking the second day of proceedings in what has become an extended legal process. The first day of arguments extended until 10:30 p.m., with numerous petitioners presenting challenges to various provisions contained in the proposed amendment.
At the outset, President's Counsel M.A. Sumanthiran, representing the Bar Association of Sri Lanka, requested that the case be heard before a full bench comprising all sitting Supreme Court judges. However, the five-member bench headed by Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena declined this request and proceeded with the originally constituted panel. Throughout the day, several prominent legal figures including President's Counsel Srinath Perera and President's Counsel Saliya Peiris presented arguments on behalf of additional petitioners.
Key concerns raised by the legal representatives centered on potential conflicts of interest. President's Counsel Perera argued that provisions in the amendment could directly or indirectly affect judicial members, making it inappropriate for judges to adjudicate on matters with personal implications. President's Counsel Peiris emphasized broader constitutional principles, contending that amendments should be framed to serve both present and future generations rather than being driven by temporary political considerations or popular sentiment.
Peiris further stressed that constitutional reforms should follow a credible and lawful process capable of withstanding future scrutiny, and should not be structured in ways that would necessitate additional amendments in the near term. The Court is scheduled to continue hearing submissions from additional petitioners and intervening parties, with the Attorney General's Department also expected to present arguments before the hearing concludes.