The government has announced plans to amend the Constitution to extend the retiring age of Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judges by two years, a move that legal experts warn could compromise judicial independence and create perceptions of political interference.

The government has signalled its intention to introduce a constitutional amendment that would raise the mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court judges from 65 to 67 years, and Court of Appeal judges from 63 to 65 years. According to Dr. Nihal Jayawickrama, a former Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Justice, this mid-term announcement lacks clear justification and will likely be perceived as an attempt to retain specific judges whose retirements are imminent.

Dr. Jayawickrama argues that retirement ages should be determined during comprehensive constitutional reform rather than through ad hoc amendments. He notes that Sri Lanka's current system mirrors that of several Asian countries, including India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, and Singapore, where similar or lower retirement ages apply. The proposed change appears unnecessary given that retiring judges have access to lucrative arbitration opportunities and pension benefits, he contends. Additionally, the Judicial Officers Association has reportedly objected to any increase in retirement ages for lower court judges, suggesting limited support for such extensions within the judiciary itself.

The amendment raises practical concerns about judicial progression. Extending the tenure of senior judges could freeze advancement opportunities for lower court judges and frustrate aspiring lawyers seeking judicial careers. Four vacancies each in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal remain unfilled for several months, departing from historical practice of filling vacancies immediately.

Government officials have suggested the extension would help reduce case backlogs, but Dr. Jayawickrama characterises this as a flawed argument. He argues that litigation delays stem from procedural inefficiencies rather than insufficient judges, pointing to successful procedural reforms introduced decades earlier that significantly reduced case volumes. Dr. Jayawickrama further questions whether the amendment targets a specific judge, noting the differential treatment of recent Chief Justices and citing historical instances of politically-motivated judicial appointments in Sri Lanka.