By Adolf
The debate over extending the retirement age of Supreme Court judges has rapidly evolved from a legal and administrative issue into a constitutional and governance controversy. What was initially presented as a routine proposal is now being viewed by many in the legal fraternity as an attempt to alter a long-established principle for the benefit of one individual.
Opposition
The strongest opposition has come from the legal profession itself. Both the current President of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) and the BASL President who led the profession during the Aragalaya have publicly expressed serious reservations about what they describe as a hurried and ill-conceived attempt to increase the retirement age of judges. Their position is simple: constitutional conventions should never be altered to suit individuals or immediate political expediency.
The issue is not without judicial precedent. A landmark determination delivered by former Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva made it abundantly clear that the retirement age of Supreme Court judges is 65 years. That judgment left little room for ambiguity. The principle was straightforward: once the constitutional retirement age is reached, a judge retires. The certainty of that rule has helped preserve the independence and predictability of the judicial system.
Mighty Hurry
Critics now allege that the sudden urgency to amend the law before November has little to do with judicial reform and everything to do with enabling the incumbent Chief Justice to remain in office beyond the existing constitutional limit. Whether or not that allegation is ultimately proven, perception matters. Public confidence in the judiciary depends not only on actual independence but also on the appearance of independence.
The Bar Association, representing nearly 27,000 lawyers across Sri Lanka, has made its opposition unmistakably clear. Its message is that any such fundamental constitutional change should not be rushed through Parliament. If there is genuine public demand to alter the retirement age of the country’s highest judges, then such a significant constitutional question deserves the widest possible public consultation. Some have even argued that it is of such constitutional importance that it should be put before the people at a referendum.
One senior lawyer aptly observed that extending the retirement age of the Chief Justice for the benefit of one individual is no different in principle from extending the term of Parliament or the Presidency while those officeholders are still in power. Constitutional rules exist precisely to prevent governments from changing the rules of the game midway through the match.
History should also serve as a warning. Successive governments that sought to interfere with or undermine the independence of the judiciary eventually paid a heavy political price. The legal profession has repeatedly demonstrated that it will defend judicial independence regardless of which party is in office. Governments may command parliamentary majorities, but they cannot afford to lose public confidence in the institutions that uphold the rule of law.
President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, despite enjoying a commanding parliamentary majority, is still relatively new to the complexities of governing. Political power should not be mistaken for constitutional licence. Every President who attempted to confront or weaken the independence of the judiciary eventually encountered serious political consequences.
Consultation
There is an obvious path to avoid an unnecessary constitutional confrontation. The government should engage constructively with the Bar Association and the wider legal community instead of forcing through controversial legislation. Given the close family relationship between Prime Minister Harini Amarasuriya and BASL President Rajeev Amarasuriya, some believe dialogue may offer a practical way to find common ground rather than deepen divisions.
Former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa learned that confronting the legal fraternity carried significant political costs. The present administration would do well to study those lessons carefully. Constitutional institutions are built over generations but can be weakened surprisingly quickly. Preserving their independence should remain above politics, personalities and short-term convenience.
The post Harini’s Cousin Rajiv Says No to Judicial Extensions? appeared first on LNW Lanka News Web.
