Reports indicating that the government is considering a constitutional amendment to raise the retirement age for judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal are noted with grave concern. The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) shared this view in a letter addressed to President Anura Kumara Dissanayake dated 25th May 2026.
The association states that the retirement ages for the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court judges, which stand at 63 and 65 years respectively since the 1978 Constitution, should not undergo arbitrary changes, as such alterations are neither required nor desirable. Taking such action will diminish public trust in the legal system's integrity and undermine the government's vow to protect the rule of law and judicial independence. The general public will likely question government's motives behind introducing a constitutional amendment solely for this objective.
The 20th Amendment to the Constitution, certified on 29th October 2020, already expanded the judge cadre, increasing the Court of Appeal from 12 to 20 judges and the Supreme Court from 11 to 17 judges. Given this enhancement, no practical requirement exists to extend the retirement ages based on workload.
Altering these retirement limits requires a constitutional amendment. Sri Lanka's Constitution faced ad hoc amendments for many years to satisfy the political requirements of ruling governments, frequently acting against the rule of law and judicial independence.
Extending the retirement age of serving judges at this juncture will likely appear to the public as a direct attempt to interfere with the judiciary. Proceeding with an ad hoc move of this nature represents an affront to the judges and sets a hazardous precedent for future governments to implement ad hoc constitutional amendments concerning judicial functions.
Judicial independence and public trust remain vital pillars of the rule of law and the democratic framework. The judiciary must not only stay independent in reality but must also appear entirely independent, impartial, and free from any perception of influence, favour, or impropriety.
To fulfil its duty to protect the rule of law and judicial independence, the association expresses serious concern regarding the proposed amendment, which serves neither the interests of the judiciary nor the public. The BASL urges the President not to proceed with any constitutional amendment aiming to increase the retirement age for members of the judiciary, including judges of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.
The association states that the retirement ages for the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court judges, which stand at 63 and 65 years respectively since the 1978 Constitution, should not undergo arbitrary changes, as such alterations are neither required nor desirable. Taking such action will diminish public trust in the legal system's integrity and undermine the government's vow to protect the rule of law and judicial independence. The general public will likely question government's motives behind introducing a constitutional amendment solely for this objective.
The 20th Amendment to the Constitution, certified on 29th October 2020, already expanded the judge cadre, increasing the Court of Appeal from 12 to 20 judges and the Supreme Court from 11 to 17 judges. Given this enhancement, no practical requirement exists to extend the retirement ages based on workload.
Altering these retirement limits requires a constitutional amendment. Sri Lanka's Constitution faced ad hoc amendments for many years to satisfy the political requirements of ruling governments, frequently acting against the rule of law and judicial independence.
Extending the retirement age of serving judges at this juncture will likely appear to the public as a direct attempt to interfere with the judiciary. Proceeding with an ad hoc move of this nature represents an affront to the judges and sets a hazardous precedent for future governments to implement ad hoc constitutional amendments concerning judicial functions.
Judicial independence and public trust remain vital pillars of the rule of law and the democratic framework. The judiciary must not only stay independent in reality but must also appear entirely independent, impartial, and free from any perception of influence, favour, or impropriety.
To fulfil its duty to protect the rule of law and judicial independence, the association expresses serious concern regarding the proposed amendment, which serves neither the interests of the judiciary nor the public. The BASL urges the President not to proceed with any constitutional amendment aiming to increase the retirement age for members of the judiciary, including judges of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.
