By Sudarshana Gunawardana, Attorney at Law
Strong voices from Sri Lanka’s legal academia and international legal associations continue to caution against the government’s proposed constitutional amendment to extend the retirement age of Superior Court judges, warning of serious risks to judicial independence and democratic principles.
At a public forum organized by the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) on July 4, 2026, at the Sri Lanka Foundation, experts including CLA President Steven Thiru and LAWASIA President T.L. Yap joined local voices in highlighting the dangers of proceeding with an ad hoc, targeted amendment focused on sitting Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judges.
Key Legal Arguments Against the Proposal
- Perception of Interference and Compromised Integrity: Extending tenure for sitting judges at this juncture creates an impression of executive or legislative influence over the judiciary. The judiciary must not only be independent but must visibly appear impartial and free from any perception of favour or accommodation. Selectively altering constitutionally fixed retirement ages (such as under Article 107(5)) risks politicizing the bench.
- Lack of Due Process and Transparency: Constitutional changes affecting the judiciary require rigorous, transparent processes with broad stakeholder consultation. An ad hoc amendment bypassing proper deliberation sets a dangerous precedent and erodes public trust.
- Violation of the 2024 Social Contract and Democratic Expectations: As powerfully articulated by Dr. Deepika Udagama, Chair Professor of Law (Retd.), University of Peradeniya, and former Chairperson of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka, such a move would violate the “social contract” forged between the people and the government in 2024. Voters demanded systemic change; an anti-democratic measure of this nature would undermine those expectations.
Dr. Udagama emphasized that reforms to the judiciary should only be contemplated through broad-based consultations, ideally leading to the new constitution promised in the NPP Manifesto of 2024. She warned that proceeding otherwise would attract international scrutiny, including from the UN Human Rights Council and the European Union regarding GSP+ concessions, due to violations of Sri Lanka’s international obligations on judicial independence. - International Precedents and Standards: Mr. Steven Thiru drew parallels with Zimbabwe’s controversial 2021 amendment, which raised retirement ages amid concerns over judicial tenure and led to a legitimacy crisis. Sri Lanka risks similar damage to public confidence. Both Thiru and Yap referenced established frameworks such as the Beijing Statement of Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, the Commonwealth (Latimer House) Principles, and the Goa Declaration. These instruments stress secure tenure, separation of powers, and protection against overreach. While demographic shifts and longer life expectancies may support general reforms in principle, retroactive application to sitting judges in a politicized context is deeply problematic.
- Recommendations
Speakers at the BASL forum urged the government to:
- Withdraw the proposed ad hoc amendments.
- Pursue any judicial tenure reforms only through transparent, inclusive processes.
- Prioritize the rule of law and judicial independence to preserve public confidence.
As Sri Lanka navigates critical constitutional questions, interventions by respected academics like Dr. Udagama and international bodies such as the CLA and LAWASIA serve as vital reminders. The independence of the judiciary remains indispensable to democracy and the fulfilment of the people’s mandate for genuine system change.
Sudarshana Gunawardana is an Attorney-at-Law with a focus on constitutional and public law matters. He is a prominent civil society figure in Sri Lanka.