FINANCIAL CHRONICLE – The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) has expressed its apprehensions regarding the government’s proposal to raise the retirement age for Supreme Court judges. The association is urging the administration to prioritize addressing the ongoing vacancies in the appellate courts and to engage in dialogue with relevant stakeholders before making any constitutional amendments.
The BASL highlighted that the Judicial Service Association, which represents district judges and magistrates, has unanimously rejected the idea of extending the retirement age at any level within the judiciary. BASL President Rajeev T. Amarasuriya informed journalists in Colombo that the suggestion to extend the retirement age had not been part of any public policy discussions or legal reforms until it emerged in recent media coverage.
Amarasuriya cautioned that making uncoordinated changes to judicial tenure could undermine the independence of the judiciary, which plays a crucial role in balancing the powers of the executive and legislative branches. The BASL initially reached out to the Minister of Justice on March 30 and followed up with a letter to the President on May 30. A subsequent letter was sent to the Justice Minister on July 16 after it was revealed that the issue had been brought up in a cabinet meeting. However, the association has yet to receive any formal responses from the government or the executive regarding these communications.
The BASL President emphasized that any modifications affecting the judiciary should undergo thorough consideration rather than being implemented hastily. “A nation’s constitution has long-term implications. Changes of this nature are not to be taken lightly; they are permanent,” he stated. He also pointed out that four positions remain vacant within both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, totaling eight unfilled seats in Sri Lanka’s highest appellate courts, raising questions about the logic of pursuing age extensions without first addressing these vacancies.
Amarasuriya drew a comparison to corporate governance, explaining that in a typical business, the priority would be to fill existing vacancies before seeking to extend the terms of the CEO or board members. He acknowledged the government’s ongoing efforts to modernize Sri Lanka’s court system but urged that investments should be directed toward technology, case management, and lower courts, where the majority of judicial delays are found, rather than to extending judicial tenures.
The BASL’s letters to the Minister of Justice and the President are included below:
BAR ASSOCIATION OF SRI LANKA (BASL) LETTER TO THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE REGARDING THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ON JUDICIAL RETIREMENT AGE:
BAR ASSOCIATION OF SRI LANKA
16th July 2026
Hon. Harshana Nanayakkara
Minister of Justice and National Integration,
Ministry of Justice and National Integration,
No. 19, Sri Sangaraja Mawatha,
Colombo 10.
Dear Sir,
PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO INCREASE THE RETIREMENT AGES OF JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEAL
We wish to express our concerns regarding your health and wish you a swift recovery. We are writing in regard to the proposal of considerable constitutional significance that could have a profound impact on the independence of the judiciary, the administration of justice, and the rule of law.
We respectfully request that you consider the serious concerns raised by the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL), the broader legal community, members of the judiciary, and several prominent jurists and legal organizations both domestically and internationally.
As you may recall, we sent a letter dated March 30, 2026, seeking clarification on whether the government was indeed considering a constitutional amendment to increase the retirement ages of judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. A copy of that letter is enclosed for your reference.
Since we did not receive a response, we followed up with a letter dated May 25, 2026, to His Excellency the President, outlining the Bar’s position against such a proposal. A copy of that letter is also attached.
In our communication dated May 25, we highlighted that the current retirement ages of judges have been unchanged since the Constitution’s enactment in 1978 and that there is no compelling need to alter these provisions. The recent increase in the number of approved judges in both courts sufficiently addresses any capacity-related concerns.
Furthermore, the BASL expressed that a constitutional amendment solely aimed at extending the tenures of sitting judges could raise questions regarding its intent and could undermine public trust in the judiciary’s independence. This trust is built on both actual independence and the public’s perception that the judiciary is free from any influence or bias.
We also noted that any constitutional amendments concerning the superior judiciary should not be undertaken in a haphazard manner or in reaction to temporary situations. Such changes should only be introduced when there is a clear institutional necessity, transparent justification, and broad stakeholder consultation. Public confidence in constitutional governance is reliant on both the process and substance of any amendments.
Regrettably, we have not received any official responses to our prior letters. The proposal has since become a topic of considerable public debate and constitutional concern, garnering opposition from nearly every sector involved in the justice system. This opposition includes members of the judiciary, former judges, senior legal professionals, esteemed academics, and respected international legal organizations.
The feelings of these stakeholders were notably captured by Mr. Shyam Divan, a Senior Advocate from India, who remarked that when something feels amiss, as is the case with this proposal, citizens can rely on the BASL to provide trustworthy guidance. He affirmed that the move to amend the Constitution to extend the retirement age of superior court judges fails the ‘smell test.’
We are aware that following the Cabinet meeting on July 14, 2026, the Ministry of Justice has been tasked with preparing a report and observations before the Cabinet makes a final decision on this matter. This presents a crucial opportunity to ensure that the report reflects the views of the main stakeholders in the justice sector, who can provide valuable insights.
You will understand that it has been customary for the Ministry of Justice to consult with the BASL on legislative and policy matters affecting the justice system, which underscores the BASL’s essential constitutional role in representing the legal profession and safeguarding the rule of law and judicial independence.
Given that this proposal involves a constitutional amendment that directly impacts the superior judiciary and has raised significant concerns from both the bench and bar, it is a matter of extraordinary constitutional importance. Thus, it should not be handled through standard administrative channels, but rather through structured consultations with all key stakeholders.
Accordingly, we respectfully request that you form an appropriate committee comprising representatives from the Ministry, the judiciary, the BASL, and other relevant stakeholders to comprehensively study the proposal and submit an objective report prior to any further action.
We also request that a delegation from the BASL Executive Committee, along with Senior Presidents’ Counsel and other senior members of the profession, be allowed to meet with you at your earliest convenience to discuss these matters in detail.
The BASL is prepared to assist the Ministry in any consultative processes that may be established, and we hope that no further steps will be taken regarding this proposal until meaningful consultations have occurred with the principal stakeholders of the justice sector.
We look forward to your favorable response.
Yours faithfully,
Rajeev Amarasuriya
President
Bar Association of Sri Lanka
Nalin De Silva
Secretary
Bar Association of Sri Lanka
CC: Ms. Ayesha Jinasena, PC
Secretary
Ministry of Justice and National Integration
BAR ASSOCIATION OF SRI LANKA (BASL) LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT REGARDING THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ON JUDICIAL RETIREMENT AGE:
BAR ASSOCIATION OF SRI LANKA
25th May 2026
His Excellency Anura Kumara Dissanayake,
President of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka,
Presidential Secretariat,
Colombo 01.
Your Excellency,
ALLEGED MOVE TO INCREASE THE RETIREMENT AGE OF THE JUDICIARY INCLUDING THE COURT OF APPEAL AND THE SUPREME COURT
The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) has expressed serious concerns regarding reports suggesting that the Government is contemplating an amendment to the Constitution to raise the retirement age for judges of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.
The BASL holds the view that the retirement ages for these judges, which have been set at 63 and 65 years respectively since the 1978 Constitution, should not be changed arbitrarily, as such a change is neither necessary nor appropriate.
Making such amendments could undermine public confidence in the integrity of the legal system and the Government’s commitment to uphold the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. The public may question the government’s motives for proposing a constitutional amendment solely for this reason.
Your Excellency is aware that the number of judges in the Court of Appeal was increased from 12 to 20 judges (including the President of the Court of Appeal) and in the Supreme Court from 11 to 17 judges (including the Chief Justice) by the 20th amendment to the Constitution, certified on October 29, 2020. This enhancement addresses any workload concerns, negating the need to extend the retirement ages of these judges.
It is crucial to highlight that altering the retirement age for judges in these apex courts requires a constitutional amendment. Over the years, Sri Lanka’s Constitution has faced numerous ad hoc amendments, often addressing the political needs of the ruling government and sometimes contrary to the principles of the rule of law and judicial independence.
Extending the retirement age for sitting judges at this juncture is likely to be perceived by the public as an overt attempt to interfere with the judiciary. Pursuing such an ad hoc measure would also be an affront to the honorable judges of these courts.
If the Government proceeds with this move, it could set a troubling precedent for future administrations to introduce arbitrary amendments to the Constitution regarding the judiciary’s functions.
The independence of the judiciary, along with public trust in it, are essential pillars of the rule of law and the democratic framework of our Republic. It is vital that the judiciary remains not only independent in practice but also appears to the public to be entirely free from any influence, favoritism, or impropriety.
Consequently, the BASL feels compelled, in its duty to uphold and protect the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, to express its serious concerns regarding any proposed amendment that does not serve the interests of the judiciary or the public.
In light of these considerations, the BASL respectfully urges Your Excellency to refrain from proceeding with any proposed constitutional amendment aimed at increasing the retirement age of judges, including those of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.
We trust that Your Excellency will recognize the importance of preserving and protecting the independence, integrity, dignity, and public confidence in the judiciary, which are crucial for maintaining the rule of law and democratic governance in Sri Lanka.
Thank you,
Yours faithfully,
[Signature]
Rajeev Amarasuriya
President
Bar Association of Sri Lanka
[Signature]
Nalin De Silva
Secretary
Bar Association of Sri Lanka
(Colombo/Jul21/2026)
