By Lakbima News Investigative Desk
September 6, 2026
Sri Lanka has a problem that cannot be ignored.
Around 1.1 million cases are pending in the country’s courts. Behind that number are people waiting for decisions over property, money, family disputes, criminal charges and compensation.
For many of them, the delay is not a statistic. It is years of uncertainty.
The Government says it has a plan to address the problem.
But that plan has now created a constitutional battle of its own.
The proposed 22nd Amendment to the Constitution would increase the retirement age of Supreme Court judges from 65 to 67 and Court of Appeal judges from 63 to 65. It would also increase the number of Court of Appeal judges from 19 to 24.
The Government says the changes are needed to strengthen the judiciary and deal with the enormous backlog of cases.
Critics argue that changing the constitutional rules governing the tenure of senior judges raises much wider questions about judicial independence.
So what is really happening?
And is increasing the retirement age of judges enough to solve Sri Lanka’s much bigger problem?
The problem is real
One thing is difficult to dispute: Sri Lanka’s courts are under enormous pressure.
Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara has put the current backlog at approximately 1.1 million cases. Parliament had previously recorded 1,131,818 pending cases across the judicial system.
The Government argues that Sri Lanka needs greater judicial capacity to deal with this workload.
Its Cabinet has said that more Court of Appeal judges are needed to enable the court to exercise its jurisdiction regionally. It has also argued that additional High Court judges are needed because of the large number of cases being handled by provincial courts.
The Government says raising the retirement age would also allow the courts to retain experienced judges while the system is expanded.
At first glance, the argument is straightforward.
If there are too many cases and not enough judicial capacity, why not have more judges and allow experienced judges to remain on the bench longer?
That is a reasonable question.
But it is not the only question that needs to be asked.
The Bill is already before Parliament
The 22nd Amendment Bill was presented to Parliament on August 18, 2026, for its First Reading.
Parliament referred the Bill to the Sectoral Oversight Committee on Governance, Justice and Civil Protection. Under the constitutional process, petitions challenging its constitutionality could be filed before the Supreme Court within 14 days of its presentation. If petitions were filed, the Supreme Court was required to consider them and communicate its determination to the Speaker within 21 days.
Those challenges were filed.
The Supreme Court has now heard the arguments.
And the dispute has become much bigger than a question of whether judges should retire at 65 or 67.
The constitutional question
The Supreme Court heard petitions challenging the constitutionality of the proposed amendment before a five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena.
The petitioners argued, among other things, that the amendment affects constitutional principles including judicial independence and the sovereignty of the people.
A central issue was whether the amendment requires not only the special majority in Parliament but also approval by the people at a referendum.
The Government has rejected that position.
Its lawyers have argued that the proposed changes are constitutional and are intended to improve the efficiency of the justice system.
The Government has also rejected claims that the amendment was designed to benefit a particular group of judges.
That distinction matters.
There is a difference between asking whether a constitutional amendment could affect judicial independence and claiming that the Government has deliberately attempted to undermine judicial independence.
The first is a legitimate constitutional question.
The second requires evidence.
Why the Chief Justice provision has attracted attention
One provision has received particular attention.
Under the proposed amendment, the Chief Justice would retire either when reaching the age of 67 or after completing six years as Chief Justice, whichever occurs earlier.
The Bill also proposes increasing the number of Court of Appeal judges from 19 to 24.
The issue has attracted additional scrutiny because the current Chief Justice, Preethi Padman Surasena, is heading the five-member bench hearing the constitutional petitions.
The other members of the bench are Justices Achala Wengappuli, Arjuna Obeyesekere, Sampath Abeykoon and Gihan Kulatunga.
Lawyers representing petitioners asked that the matter be heard by a full bench of the sitting Supreme Court judges.
That request was rejected and the case proceeded before the five-judge bench.
That does not, by itself, establish that the judges cannot act impartially.
But it helps explain why the issue has become so sensitive.
The Government’s argument deserves consideration
The Government’s case should not simply be dismissed as political.
Sri Lanka cannot afford to ignore a court system carrying a backlog of around 1.1 million cases.
For someone waiting years for a judgment, the problem is not an argument between politicians or lawyers.
The delay is the problem.
The Government says that expanding the judiciary and allowing experienced judges to remain in service longer will help address it.
Its Cabinet has specifically pointed to the need for more Court of Appeal judges to facilitate regional operations and additional High Court judges to handle cases in provincial courts.
The Government has also acknowledged that increasing the retirement age is only one part of a broader effort.
Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara has pointed to delays within institutions such as the Government Analyst’s Department and the Attorney General’s Department, as well as the need to recruit additional staff.
That is an important point.
The legislation is addressing a real administrative problem.
The harder question is whether changing the Constitution is enough to solve it.
More judges may not be the whole answer
This is where the issue becomes more complicated.
A court backlog is not caused only by the number of judges.
Investigations can take time. Prosecutors can face delays. Forensic reports can take time to complete. Administrative procedures can slow cases down. Court infrastructure and the way cases are scheduled and managed can also make a difference.
The Chief Justice himself has highlighted this issue.
Speaking about the Supreme Court’s backlog earlier this year, Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena said the number of pending cases had fallen from 5,326 to 3,763 after changes to the way cases were managed.
He specifically said the experience demonstrated the importance of case management and that simply increasing the number of judges was not necessarily the best solution for clearing backlogs.
That does not mean additional judges are unnecessary.
It means the problem may be larger than the number of people sitting on the bench.
Adding judges may help.
But it does not automatically mean that 1.1 million pending cases will suddenly begin moving quickly.
The questions Parliament should ask
Much of the public debate has become a fight over one number:
65 or 67?
But perhaps that is not the most important question.
Parliament should also be asking:
How many cases are expected to be cleared as a result of these reforms?
How many additional judges will actually be appointed?
How many new courts or regional sittings will become operational?
How much will the expansion cost?
How much of the current backlog is directly attributable to a shortage of judges?
And how much is caused by delays elsewhere in the justice system?
There is another question that may be even more important:
What happens if the reforms do not produce the results promised?
Those questions deserve concrete answers.
This is a constitutional issue, not just a political fight
Sri Lanka’s political history provides another reason to take this debate seriously.
A constitutional power does not permanently belong to the Government that introduces it.
It remains available to whoever governs next.
That is why constitutional safeguards matter even when a government says its intentions are legitimate.
Supporters of the amendment should ask themselves whether they would be comfortable with the same constitutional powers being exercised by a government they strongly oppose.
Opponents should ask themselves the same question.
That is a more useful test of constitutional reform than simply deciding which political side one supports.
What the evidence tells us
The available evidence establishes several things.
Sri Lanka has a very large judicial backlog.
The Government has proposed increasing the retirement ages of Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judges.
The Government says the reforms are intended to increase judicial capacity and improve the efficiency of the justice system.
The amendment has been challenged before the Supreme Court.
The petitioners argue that the changes could affect constitutional protections and judicial independence.
The Government rejects that interpretation.
What the evidence does not establish is that the amendment was created specifically to benefit a particular judge or that the Government is attempting to take control of the judiciary.
Those would be serious allegations.
They should not be reported as facts without evidence.
The real test comes next
Sri Lanka needs a faster and more effective justice system.
There is little argument about that.
But changing the Constitution is not a routine administrative decision.
It changes the rules under which important state institutions operate.
That is why both sides of the 22nd Amendment debate deserve scrutiny.
The Government has a legitimate argument when it points to the enormous backlog and the need for greater judicial capacity.
Critics have an equally important responsibility to ask whether the proposed changes could have unintended consequences for judicial independence.
The Supreme Court has now heard the competing arguments and is considering its determination, which will be communicated to the Speaker.
Whatever happens to the amendment, however, the larger problem will remain.
Sri Lanka still has around 1.1 million reasons to fix its justice system.
The real measure of this reform will not simply be whether Parliament succeeds in changing the retirement age.
It will be whether an ordinary Sri Lankan waiting for justice gets it faster.
That is the result the public should ultimately judge.
Lakbima News | Investigative Report
This report distinguishes between verified facts, statements made by the Government and arguments made by petitioners. Allegations concerning political motives or judicial independence have not been presented as established facts without supporting evidence.
Sources
Parliament of Sri Lanka — 22nd Amendment Bill presented to Parliament
Cabinet Office — Government’s explanation of the judicial reforms
Sunday Times — Constitutional challenge to the 22nd Amendment
