NPP-Aligned Lawyers Defend Judicial Retirement Age Increase as Reform, Not Threat

Lawyers for Public Mandate, an organization affiliated with the National People's Power, has defended proposed judicial reforms that would raise retirement ages across Sri Lanka's courts, arguing the changes address case backlogs and are consistent with international standards.

The Lawyers for Public Mandate (LPM) Organization has publicly supported the government's judicial reform proposal at a recent media briefing, characterizing criticism as politically motivated opposition from those facing corruption allegations. According to the LPM, the Cabinet-approved legislation would incrementally raise retirement ages for judges at multiple levels: Supreme Court judges would retire at 67 instead of 65, Court of Appeal judges at 65 instead of 63, and High Court judges at 63 instead of 61. Magistrates and District Judges would be required to serve until age 62 rather than 60, while the Chief Justice would have a tenure of 67 years or six years from appointment, whichever occurs first.

The NPP-affiliated attorneys contended that the proposed retirement ages align with international precedent, citing examples from multiple democracies. They noted that judges in Australia and Denmark work until 70, Canadian and Brazilian judges until 75, and that the United States imposes no mandatory retirement age for federal judges. The lawyers invoked American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. to argue that accumulated judicial experience strengthens legal systems and decision-making.

According to the LPM, the reforms target longstanding systemic challenges within Sri Lanka's courts rather than individual judges. The organization highlighted a significant shortage in the judicial workforce, noting that although 110 High Court positions have been authorized, only 93 are currently filled. They attributed court delays and substantial case backlogs to this staffing deficit and argued the retention of experienced judges would assist in addressing these bottlenecks. The LPM characterized opposition to the proposal as an attempt by politicians under corruption investigation to misrepresent the reforms as a threat to judicial autonomy.