The Government's proposed constitutional amendment to extend retirement ages for senior judges has triggered immediate legal challenges from opposition parties, legal professionals and constitutional experts, with disputes centering on whether the changes require a public referendum.
The Government's Twenty-Second Amendment to the Constitution, introduced yesterday by Justice and National Integration Minister Harshana Nanayakkara, has become the subject of urgent legal contestation. The proposal seeks to raise the retirement age of Supreme Court judges from 65 to 67 years and Court of Appeal judges from 63 to 65 years, alongside separate changes affecting lower court judges.
Within hours of the Bill's presentation, multiple petitions were filed at the Supreme Court challenging its validity. The Samagi Jana Balawegaya party, the Bar Association of Sri Lanka, constitutional law academic Prof. G.L. Peiris, and the Free Lawyers Movement have all sought determinations that the amendment requires both a two-thirds parliamentary majority and approval through public referendum. These challenges precede the Bill's scheduled Second Reading debate in Parliament today.
The constitutional disputes focus on whether extending retirement terms to sitting judges—particularly the incumbent Chief Justice—violates principles of judicial independence and the separation of powers. Prof. Peiris has specifically argued that applying the extension to current office-holders amounts to a retrospective constitutional amendment and could be perceived as inducement to judicial officials. The Government contends the changes address judicial officer shortages and strengthen the system, but Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa has characterised the proposals as the "death of democracy."
The Supreme Court must determine within 14 days whether the amendment can proceed through Parliament with a special majority or must go to referendum, while Parliament simultaneously addresses Opposition resistance to the legislation.
