Opposition leaders have challenged the government's justification for raising mandatory retirement ages of senior judges, arguing that cases in the Supreme and Appeal Courts represent only a small fraction of the overall judicial backlog.
The Joint Opposition has disputed the government's primary argument for the proposed 22nd Amendment, which seeks to raise retirement ages for senior judges. Opposition Convenor Prof. G.L. Peiris stated that cases pending in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal constitute merely one percent of the 1.1 million total cases cited by the government, questioning whether judicial clearance was genuinely the motivation behind the proposed changes.
The amendment would increase the mandatory retirement age of Supreme Court Justices from 65 to 67 years and Appeals Court Judges from 63 to 65 years. The Chief Justice would retire upon reaching 67 or after six years in office, whichever occurs first. Prof. Peiris noted that the Supreme Court currently has four vacancies and the Court of Appeal has four vacancies, arguing that if backlog reduction were the true concern, these positions would have been filled.
Opposition figures claim the overwhelming majority of pending cases—approximately 96 percent according to United Republic Front leader Patali Champika Ranawaka—are concentrated in lower courts such as Magistrate and District Courts. Ranawaka referenced previous recommendations from a 2017 parliamentary committee and a 2023 Asian Development Bank study that had addressed judicial efficiency but were allegedly ignored by the government.
Opposition leaders have suggested alternative motives for the amendment, alleging it aims to strengthen executive control over the judiciary and potentially extend parliamentary and presidential terms. Prof. Peiris indicated the Opposition intends to challenge the amendment in the Supreme Court within two weeks of its gazetting, citing constitutional provisions allowing such challenges.
