The Government says it wants to strengthen the judiciary and deal with delays in the courts. Critics see a much more sensitive question: should the retirement rules of serving senior judges be changed while they are still in office?
Sri Lanka’s proposed 22nd Amendment has already generated more political and legal controversy than its relatively short text might suggest.
On paper, the Bill is not a sweeping rewrite of the Constitution. It contains a small number of changes, most importantly raising the retirement age of Supreme Court judges from 65 to 67 and Court of Appeal judges from 63 to 65.
It would also introduce a six-year limit for a Chief Justice, subject to the Chief Justice reaching the age of 67, whichever comes first.
And there is another change that has received less attention: the Constitution would allow the Court of Appeal to have up to 24 other judges instead of 19.
Those changes sound administrative.
They are not entirely so.
Retirement rules determine how long judges remain in office. The number of judges determines the capacity of the appellate courts. And because the proposed retirement ages would apply to the present judicial establishment, the argument has quickly moved from court administration to a much bigger constitutional question: how do you change the rules governing judicial tenure without damaging the independence of the judiciary?
The 22nd Amendment would keep judges in Sri Lanka’s two highest courts for longer and increase the potential size of the Court of Appeal. The dispute is over whether changing those rules for serving judges affects judicial independence.
First, what does the Bill actually change?
The Bill was presented to Parliament on August 18, 2026 after being published in the Gazette.
Its central change is to Article 107(5) of the Constitution.
At present, Supreme Court judges retire at 65. Court of Appeal judges retire at 63.
The proposed amendment would move those ages to 67 and 65 respectively.
The Bill also provides a specific rule for the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice would retire either when reaching 67 or after completing six years from the date of appointment as Chief Justice, whichever comes first.
That last provision is worth noticing because it is different from simply saying that the Chief Justice can remain until 67.
A Chief Justice appointed at a relatively young age could therefore leave the position before reaching 67 if six years in the office had already been completed.
The numbers are simple. The constitutional question is not.
| Position | Current age | Proposed age | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court Judge | 65 | 67 | +2 years |
| Court of Appeal Judge | 63 | 65 | +2 years |
| Chief Justice | 65 | 67 or 6 years as CJ | New limit |
There is another change that could matter just as much
Article 137 currently provides for a Court of Appeal consisting of the President of that Court and not more than 19 other judges.
The amendment would change that ceiling to 24 other judges.
In simple terms, the Government would have the constitutional room to expand the Court of Appeal by up to five additional judges.
That is directly connected to the Government’s argument about the growing backlog of cases.
More judges can mean more benches. More benches can mean more cases being heard at the same time.
But there is a difference between creating the constitutional capacity for more judges and actually appointing five additional judges. The amendment itself does not automatically put five new judges on the bench.
It simply raises the constitutional ceiling.
So the Bill does three main things
Supreme Court: retirement age rises from 65 to 67.
Court of Appeal: retirement age rises from 63 to 65.
Court of Appeal capacity: the constitutional ceiling rises from 19 other judges to 24.
Why is the Government proposing it?
The Government’s explanation is fairly direct.
It says Sri Lanka’s courts are dealing with a substantial backlog and that judicial capacity needs to be strengthened.
The Cabinet approved the preparation of the constitutional and Judicature Act amendments with the stated objective of strengthening the independence of the judiciary and ensuring the efficient disposal of pending cases.
The Government has also pointed to measures outside the constitutional amendment, including increasing judicial capacity, speeding up reports from the Government Analyst’s Department and expanding High Court capacity.
President Anura Kumara Dissanayake has publicly described the amendment as part of the Government’s broader effort to strengthen the justice system and tackle delays.
That argument is not difficult to understand.
A court system cannot clear a large backlog simply by telling judges to work faster. It needs enough judges, courtrooms, staff and administrative support.
The proposed increase in the Court of Appeal’s ceiling is therefore the least controversial part of the Bill in practical terms.
The retirement-age change is where the real constitutional argument begins.
The problem: these are not hypothetical judges
If the Government were proposing a retirement age of 67 for judges who would be appointed in the future, the political argument might be simpler.
But the proposed change affects the current judicial establishment.
That is why the Bar Association of Sri Lanka and other petitioners challenged the Bill before the Supreme Court.
Their argument is not simply that judges should retire at 65 forever.
The deeper concern is what happens when the Government changes the tenure rules of judges who are already serving.
Judicial independence depends partly on judges knowing that their constitutional tenure cannot be manipulated according to the wishes of the political branches.
The Government has rejected the suggestion that the amendment is designed to benefit particular judges. Its position is that the change is a general reform intended to improve the efficiency of the judiciary and retain experienced judges.
That disagreement is now before the Supreme Court.
Is extending judicial retirement ages a normal administrative reform — or can changing the tenure of serving judges interfere with judicial independence?
Why the Supreme Court is involved before Parliament votes
Sri Lanka’s Constitution gives the Supreme Court a specific role when the constitutionality of a Bill is challenged before it is passed.
After the 22nd Amendment was presented on August 18, petitions were filed challenging its constitutionality.
The petitions were heard by a five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena.
The Court heard arguments from the petitioners and the Attorney General’s Department before the proceedings concluded.
One of the main questions before the Court is whether the Bill can be passed with the required parliamentary majority alone or whether the Constitution requires the amendment to go before the people at a referendum as well.
That determination has not been made public as of September 12.
And that is important because Parliament has already scheduled the Bill for debate on September 24 and 25, but has made the debate conditional on the Speaker receiving and announcing the Supreme Court’s determination.
In other words, Parliament has a date. The constitutional route is still being settled.
The referendum question is bigger than it first appears
The petitioners have argued that judicial independence is closely connected to the sovereignty of the people under Article 3 of the Constitution and that changing the retirement age of serving judges therefore requires approval by referendum.
The Centre for Policy Alternatives has made a similar argument in its petition, pointing to previous Supreme Court reasoning on changes to judicial tenure.
The Government has taken the opposite position.
During the hearings, the Attorney General’s Department argued that the proposed amendment actually reduces executive power rather than increasing it and that the Government’s purpose is to improve the functioning of the judicial system.
That disagreement is now sitting at the heart of the constitutional case.
If the Court determines that a referendum is required, the political calculation around the Bill changes considerably.
If the Court determines that a two-thirds parliamentary majority is sufficient, the Government’s path becomes much more straightforward.
The two possible roads from here
If Parliament is enough
The Bill can proceed through the parliamentary process, subject to the required constitutional majority and any amendments resulting from the Supreme Court determination.
The retirement ages could then rise to 67 for Supreme Court judges and 65 for Court of Appeal judges, while the Court of Appeal’s maximum number of other judges could increase to 24.
If a referendum is required
The amendment would face another national vote in addition to the parliamentary requirement.
That would turn what is currently a parliamentary constitutional debate into a much wider public question about judicial independence and the structure of the courts.
The UN has also entered the debate
The controversy is not limited to Sri Lankan political parties and lawyers.
UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers Margaret Satterthwaite raised concerns about the proposed extension of judges’ retirement ages.
The concern was not that Sri Lanka can never change the retirement age of its judges. The issue was the potential effect of applying the change to judges who are already serving.
The Government responded in August, rejecting the suggestion that the amendment was designed to prolong the tenure of particular judges.
It said the changes were intended to address delays, retain judicial expertise and improve access to justice.
That exchange matters because judicial independence is not judged only by what a government says its intentions are. It is also about whether the institutional arrangement creates public confidence that judges can make decisions without worrying about political consequences.
What about the Chief Justice?
The proposed rule for the Chief Justice deserves a closer look.
Under the amendment, the Chief Justice would retire when reaching 67 or when six years have passed since appointment as Chief Justice, whichever happens first.
The six-year provision appears designed to prevent an unusually long period in the country’s highest judicial office simply because a Chief Justice was appointed at a relatively young age.
But it also means that the amendment is doing more than merely adding two years to the existing retirement age.
It creates a new constitutional rule specifically governing the length of time a person can remain Chief Justice.
That makes the wording of the final law important, particularly if Parliament considers changes after receiving the Supreme Court’s determination.
More judges could help. But judges alone won’t clear the backlog.
There is a practical side to this debate that can sometimes get lost in the constitutional arguments.
Sri Lanka does have a serious problem with delays in the justice system.
Increasing the potential number of Court of Appeal judges from 19 to 24 could give the judiciary more room to create additional benches and process more cases.
But the number of judges is only one part of the system.
Court staff, prosecutors, lawyers, evidence, forensic reports, Government Analyst reports, police investigations and the availability of courtrooms can all affect how quickly a case moves.
A five-judge increase therefore should not be presented as a guaranteed solution to Sri Lanka’s backlog.
It is better understood as one additional piece of capacity.
The part that could have the most immediate practical effect
Raising the constitutional ceiling of the Court of Appeal from 19 to 24 other judges would allow the Government to increase appellate capacity if appointments, funding and other court resources are provided. The amendment itself does not automatically appoint those judges.
Why this debate has become so politically sensitive
The Government says the country needs a faster and more effective justice system.
The Opposition and sections of the legal profession are asking a different question: what safeguards exist when Parliament changes the tenure of judges who are already sitting?
Both arguments can exist at the same time.
Sri Lanka can genuinely need more judicial capacity and still need to protect the independence of individual judges.
The real test of the amendment is therefore not whether one side can claim to support the judiciary and the other side can claim to oppose the Government.
The test is whether the final arrangement improves the justice system without creating a precedent that allows future governments to alter judicial tenure whenever the political circumstances suit them.
The question is not whether Sri Lanka should have an efficient judiciary. Everyone agrees it should.
The difficult question is how to make the courts faster without weakening the independence that allows judges to make difficult decisions in the first place.
That is why a Bill changing two retirement ages and the size of one court has become a much larger constitutional argument.
What happens next?
For now, the next major event is not the vote itself.
It is the Supreme Court’s determination.
Parliament has allocated September 24 and 25 for the second-reading debate on the 22nd Amendment and the related Judicature (Amendment) Bill. But Parliament has specifically said the debate is subject to the Speaker receiving the Supreme Court’s determination on the petitions challenging the Bills.
That determination will tell Parliament whether the proposed constitutional changes can proceed through the parliamentary route alone or whether the people must also be asked to vote.
After that, the political debate will become much clearer.
If a two-thirds majority is enough, the Government will have a relatively direct route forward.
If a referendum is required, the issue will become much bigger than the composition and retirement ages of the courts. It will become a national debate about the relationship between Parliament, the executive and the judiciary.
One thing is already clear
Calling this simply a Bill to “increase judges’ retirement ages” misses half the story.
The Government is trying to address a real problem: Sri Lanka needs a justice system that can deal with cases faster and more efficiently.
But the way that problem is solved matters.
A court system that clears cases quickly but loses public confidence in its independence would not be a successful reform.
Equally, a judiciary protected by strong constitutional principles but unable to process cases within a reasonable time creates its own form of injustice.
The 22nd Amendment sits directly between those two concerns.
Parliament now has to decide what version of the reform it is willing to pass. Before that happens, however, the Supreme Court will have the first word on the constitutional route.
The 22nd Amendment is small on paper. Its implications are much bigger.
Two extra years for senior judges could mean more experience remains on the bench. Five additional potential Court of Appeal judges could mean greater capacity. But changing judicial tenure while judges are already serving raises a question that cannot be answered simply by pointing to the court backlog.
Sri Lanka is now waiting to find out where the Supreme Court draws that constitutional line.
This article is based on the text of the Twenty-Second Amendment Bill, parliamentary records, statements by the Government, submissions and public information concerning the constitutional challenges, and reporting on the Supreme Court proceedings. The Supreme Court’s determination on the Bill had not been publicly delivered at the time of publication. Lakbima News will update this article when the determination is formally communicated to Parliament.
Sources
- Parliament of Sri Lanka — Twenty-Second Amendment to the Constitution Bill
- Parliament of Sri Lanka — Parliamentary Business and September 24–25 Debate
- Cabinet Office — Government rationale for constitutional and judicial reforms
- Centre for Policy Alternatives — Constitutional challenge to the 22nd Amendment
- Newswire — Parliament schedules 22nd Amendment debate
- News 1st — Supreme Court proceedings on the constitutional challenge
- Newswire — Sri Lanka’s response to UN concerns
