Sri Lanka’s proposed move to extend the retirement age of judges has opened a significant constitutional debate, with legal experts warning that the decision could reshape the balance between judicial independence and state authority.
Cabinet approval has been granted for a proposal to increase the retirement age of judges serving in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and other courts by two years. The proposal will now proceed to the Legal Draftsman for preparation before being submitted for the Attorney General’s clearance, setting the stage for a major constitutional amendment.
Under Article 107(5) of the Constitution, Supreme Court judges currently retire upon reaching 65 years of age. The proposed amendment seeks to extend that limit to 67 years. The retirement age of Court of Appeal judges, currently fixed at 63 years, would also be increased to 65 years under the new framework.
The Ministry of Justice is also expected to introduce a parallel proposal concerning the retirement ages of lower court judges. At present, High Court judges retire at 61 years, while Magistrates’ and District Court judges must retire at 60 years.
While government sources are expected to highlight the benefits of retaining experienced judges within the judicial system, opposition from legal professionals has focused on deeper constitutional concerns. Critics argue that judicial tenure is directly linked to the independence of courts and any alteration must be examined carefully to ensure that constitutional safeguards are not weakened.
The central legal battle is expected to emerge during the pre-enactment stage. Once the amendment bill is gazetted and presented to Parliament, citizens and professional bodies such as the Bar Association of Sri Lanka will have 14 days to challenge its constitutionality before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court will then determine whether the proposed amendment can be passed with a two-thirds parliamentary majority alone or whether it affects the sovereignty of the people under Article 3 of the Constitution, requiring approval through a public referendum.
Those opposing the amendment are expected to argue that judicial independence forms an essential part of people’s sovereignty. They are likely to contend that extending judicial service through constitutional changes could create opportunities for political influence over the composition and functioning of the judiciary.
However, supporters of the proposal may argue that experienced judges are a valuable national resource and that extending service periods could improve efficiency, maintain institutional knowledge and address challenges faced by the justice system.
The decisive factor will be Parliament’s ability to secure the required majority. If the government commands a two-thirds majority, the amendment could legally proceed despite objections from professional groups and civil society.
A key feature of Sri Lanka’s constitutional system is that challenges after enactment are not permitted. Once Parliament passes the amendment and the Speaker grants assent, it becomes law and cannot later be challenged before a court.
Therefore, the coming constitutional review period will be the only opportunity for judicial scrutiny. The controversy surrounding the proposal is no longer limited to retirement ages alone but has become a wider debate about constitutional authority, judicial independence and the future relationship between the judiciary and the state.