Judges’ retirement age extension must face referendum, public trust at stake, urges BASL

The Bar Association of Sri Lanka, raising a solid opposition to the proposal to extend the judges' retirement age, highlighted the grave concerns that arise from the bill of the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution.

The bill of the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, published in the Gazette on August 7, 2026, primarily aims to extend the retirement age of Supreme Court and Court of Appeal justices, the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) noted.

The BASL pointed out that although authorities claim the amendment intends to fast-track hearings and improve efficiency, the link between an extended retirement age and these goals remains obscure.

The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) emphasised that if the government proceeds despite public criticism, the amendment requires the approval of the people at a referendum to be validly enacted.

The BASL pointed out that the legal community views this action as a direct interference with the independence of the judiciary, and the BASL and the Judicial Service Association unanimously oppose it.

This stance received backing from religious leaders, various civil society groups, and prominent overseas law and judges associations, the BASL added.

Issuing a statement on the matter, the BASL pointed out that the Article 107 of the Constitution, which sets the retirement age of superior court judges, sits directly under the heading "Independence of the Judiciary" in Chapter XV, underscoring that any alteration directly impacts judicial independence.

The Bar Association of Sri Lanka notes that judicial power forms an integral component of public sovereignty under Article 4(c), while Article 3 affirms that sovereignty vests in the people and remains inalienable. A 2022 Supreme Court special determination previously observed that any constitutional change to the retirement age or tenure impacting incumbent judges impinges on judicial independence and violates Article 3, making a referendum mandatory.

Placing this proposal on the parliamentary order paper allows any citizen to challenge its constitutionality before the Supreme Court. Such a challenge would force the justices into a sensitive position where they must determine the legality of an amendment extending their own tenure, which risks eroding public confidence and trust in the judiciary.

The Bar Association of Sri Lanka suggests the Cabinet of Ministers submit the bill directly to a referendum to shield the court from this dilemma.

Deep concern exists over the total absence of consultation with principal stakeholders, contrasting with transparent processes seen in other jurisdictions. Advancing the proposal with unusual haste undermines public trust and risks setting a dangerous precedent for future governments to manipulate the judiciary.

Despite government members questioning why judicial independence became a central concern, the Bar Association of Sri Lanka reiterates that justice rests on public confidence, and even the appearance of bias casts doubt on fairness.

The BASL strongly urges the government to halt the enactment of the amendment in its current form.