Judicial Reform or Constitutional Power Grab? Lawyers Declare Unprecedented Resistance
The Government’s proposal to amend the Constitution and the Judicature Act to extend the retirement age of judges has evolved into one of the most contentious legal and constitutional debates in recent years, exposing a widening rift between the Executive and Sri Lanka’s legal establishment.
Ministers argue the reforms are a practical solution to a judicial system overwhelmed by more than 1.1 million pending cases, while critics warn the move risks weakening judicial independence and setting a troubling constitutional precedent.
The Cabinet-approved proposal seeks to increase the retirement age of Supreme Court judges from 65 to 67 years, Court of Appeal judges from 63 to 65, High Court judges from 61 to 63, and District Court and Magistrate’s Court judges from 60 to 62 years.
According to the Government, retaining experienced judges is essential at a time when Sri Lanka continues to grapple with an acute shortage of senior public sector professionals and an exodus of skilled personnel. Officials argue that extending judicial service would preserve institutional knowledge, improve court efficiency and help reduce years-long delays that have eroded public confidence in the justice system.
The administration also maintains that longer judicial tenures are consistent with international practice, noting that judges in many mature democracies continue serving well into their late sixties or seventies. From this perspective, the proposal is presented as a governance reform aimed at ensuring continuity rather than an attempt to interfere with the judiciary.
However, the proposal has encountered overwhelming resistance from the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL), which unanimously rejected the amendment during a Special General Meeting attended by more than 3,000 attorneys.
BASL President Rajeev Amarasuriya said every lawyer participating in the meeting, both physically and virtually, opposed the proposal, giving the Association an unequivocal mandate to challenge the Government’s initiative.
Describing the decision as a serious threat to judicial independence, Amarasuriya warned that constitutional changes affecting judges must never compromise public confidence in the impartiality of the courts. He argued that the proposal could place sitting Supreme Court judges in an ethically difficult position, as they may eventually be required to rule on legislation from which they themselves stand to benefit.
The BASL further criticised the Government for approving the proposal without meaningful consultation with key stakeholders, despite the Association raising concerns for nearly two months. Amarasuriya said the legal community had repeatedly sought an opportunity to present its views before Cabinet approval but had received no formal hearing.
He also warned that any erosion of judicial independence could have consequences extending far beyond the present administration, affecting future generations and the credibility of Sri Lanka’s constitutional framework.
Following discussions with Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara, the BASL has formally requested a meeting with President Anura Kumara Dissanayake to present its concerns directly. The Justice Minister has reportedly agreed to submit the Association’s recommendations to the President before the Government decides its next course of action.
While the BASL has clarified that no decision has been taken regarding protests or disruption of court proceedings, it has pledged to continue opposing the amendment through every available legal and constitutional avenue. As the confrontation intensifies, the dispute has become far more than a debate over retirement ages it has emerged as a defining test of the balance between judicial independence and executive authority in Sri Lanka.
The post Judicial Reform or Constitutional Power Grab? Lawyers Declare Unprecedented Resistance appeared first on LNW Lanka News Web.
