Sri Lanka’s Supreme Court has determined that the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution is not inconsistent with the Constitution and does not require approval through a referendum, allowing the Bill to be passed by Parliament with a special two-thirds majority. The court also ruled that certain provisions of a separate Anti-Corruption (Amendment) Bill are inconsistent with the Constitution and that one clause will require both a parliamentary special majority and approval at a referendum.
The Speaker announced the Supreme Court’s determinations in Parliament at the commencement of Tuesday’s sitting. In relation to the 22nd Amendment, the court found that the Bill could be passed with a special majority in Parliament, while several of its clauses could be approved with a simple majority.
The JVP/NPP currently holds a two-thirds majority in the legislature, giving the governing bloc the parliamentary numbers required for the constitutional amendment to be considered under the majority threshold identified by the court. The Bill seeks to extend the retirement age of judges and was presented to Parliament on August 18 by Justice and National Integration Minister Harshana Nanayakkara.
Following its presentation, several parties challenged the constitutionality of the 22nd Amendment before the Supreme Court. A total of 67 petitions were filed. They were heard by a five-member bench comprising Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena and Justices Achala Wengappuli, Arjuna Obeyesekere, Sampath Abeykoon and Gihan Kulatunga.
The hearing concluded on September 2, after which the Supreme Court bench informed the Speaker that its determination on the constitutionality of the Bill would be communicated to Parliament. The Committee on Parliamentary Business has since decided that debate on the 22nd Amendment Bill will be held on September 24 and 25, 2026.
The Supreme Court separately determined that provisions of the Judicature (Amendment) Bill are not inconsistent with the Constitution and can be passed with a simple majority in Parliament. The Speaker included that determination in the announcement delivered to the House.
In the case of the Anti-Corruption (Amendment) Bill, however, the Supreme Court found that certain clauses are inconsistent with the Constitution and may therefore be passed only with a special majority in Parliament. The court also made a separate determination concerning Clause 17.
According to the Speaker, the Supreme Court determined that Clause 17, in its present form, may become law only if it is passed by the required special majority in Parliament and subsequently approved by the people at a referendum. The requirement applies to Clause 17 in its present form, distinguishing it from the other provisions identified in the court’s determination.
The Speaker presented the Supreme Court’s determination on the Anti-Corruption (Amendment) Bill to Parliament alongside the decisions concerning the 22nd Amendment and the Judicature (Amendment) Bill. The determinations set out different constitutional requirements for the three pieces of legislation, ranging from a simple parliamentary majority to a special majority and, in the case of Clause 17 of the Anti-Corruption Bill, approval by voters at a referendum.
