by Our Correspondent in Colombo
Sri Lanka’s Government is set to present the 22nd Constitutional Amendment Bill in Parliament on August 18, proposing to extend the retirement age of judges of the country’s superior courts.
Minister of Justice and National Integration Harshana Nanayakkara said the proposed amendment is intended to address shortcomings in the judicial system and improve its efficiency.
Under the proposed changes, the retirement age of Supreme Court judges would rise from 65 to 67, while that of Court of Appeal judges would increase from 63 to 65.
The Government has already published the relevant Gazette notification, paving the way for the Bill to be introduced in Parliament.
The proposal, however, has triggered opposition from several quarters, including the Judicial Service Association, the Bar Association of Sri Lanka and opposition political parties. International bodies, including the United Nations, have also reportedly raised concerns, while the Mahanayake Theros of the three main Buddhist Nikayas have expressed strong reservations over the proposed changes.
The Bill is likely to face further legal scrutiny once it enters Parliament. Under Article 121 of Sri Lanka’s Constitution, a Bill can be challenged before the Supreme Court within 14 days of its being placed on the Order Paper following its first reading. If petitions are filed, the Supreme Court is required to communicate its determination to Parliament within a period ranging from three to 21 days.
The Bar Association of Sri Lanka and several civil society organisations are reportedly preparing to challenge the proposed amendment before the Supreme Court.
The Government maintains that extending the retirement age is part of a broader effort to strengthen the judiciary and improve its functioning. Critics, however, have raised questions about the implications of altering the tenure of superior court judges and the wider impact the proposal could have on judicial independence.
With the Bill due to reach Parliament on August 18, its constitutional review could become an important test of the balance between judicial reform, institutional independence and the Government’s authority to reshape the country’s highest courts.
