Sri Lanka’s Proposed 22nd Constitutional Amendment: A Comprehensive and Structured Analysis of the Issues, Confusions, and Democratic Risks that the Global Sri Lankan Public Needs to Understand-by Harold Gunatillake
The proposed 22nd Constitutional Amendment in Sri Lanka has elicited significant opposition both nationally and internationally. The government asserts that it aims to address the 1.1 million case backlog by increasing the retirement ages of senior judges.
However, critics caution that this measure may lead to the politicisation of the judiciary and undermine democratic principles.
What the Amendment Actually Proposes
The retirement age for the Supreme Court has been increased from 65 to 67 years.
The retirement age for the Court of Appeal has been elevated from 63 to 65 years.
The tenure of the Chief Justice is now capped at six years, regardless of age,
A parallel bill, described as a hurried Judicature Amendment Bill, has been introduced to raise the retirement ages of High Court and Magistrate judges following public backlash.
These modifications necessitate a constitutional amendment, as judicial retirement ages are constitutionally entrenched to prevent political manipulation.
Reasons for Public Discontent
- The amendment explicitly extends the tenure of the incumbent Chief Justice, thereby giving rise to allegations of selective legislative practices.
- Conflict of interest: The presiding judges who could potentially benefit from the amendment are overseeing cases that challenge
- Misplaced priorities: Citizens question the rationale behind modifying judicial retirement ages before the implementation of promised reforms, such as the abolition of the executive presidency.
Public Confusion
- The modification of judges’ retirement ages necessitates a constitutional amendment rather than a mere voting
- Experts indicate that this measure will not resolve the delays within the judiciary, which are attributable to antiquated systems, insufficient courtrooms, and sluggish
- Additionally, an expedited second bill concerning lower court judges has exacerbated the existing
Legal and Democratic Concerns
- The Bar Association cautions that this poses a threat to judicial independence.
- Several petitions contend that the amendment may necessitate a public referendum.
- Promotions of younger judges could be impeded for an extended period.
Global Red Flags
- The United Nations asserts that this action potentially infringes upon international standards relating to judicial independence. Furthermore, there is concern that investors and donors might lose confidence if Sri Lanka’s judiciary is perceived to be under political influence.
The 22nd Amendment is not merely about extending the term by two additional years. It pertains to who holds authority over the judiciary, the processes involved in lawmaking, and whether Sri Lanka effectively safeguards democratic checks and balances.
In Parliament: COLOMBO (News 1st); The proposed 22nd Constitutional Amendment continues to attract legal and political attention. Speaker Dr Jagath Wickramaratne informed Parliament that additional petitions challenging the Bill have been filed before the Supreme Court.
The Speaker stated that, in addition to the three petitions previously announced on August 19, four additional copies of petitions concerning the proposed 22nd Constitutional Amendment Bill had been received by him pursuant to Article 121(1) of the Constitution.
Status of the Bill in Parliament: The legislation has faced multiple legal objections after its introduction. Speaker Dr Jagath Wickramaratne stated that seven petitions have been officially filed before the Supreme Court, challenging its constitutionality.
Referendum Readiness: As citizens have a 7-day window to challenge any constitutional bill, the government is awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision. Minister of Health and Mass Media, Dr
Nalinda Jayatissa, stated that the government is fully prepared to conduct a public referendum should the Supreme Court determine that a two-thirds parliamentary majority alone is insufficient to ratify the amendment. A final court ruling is anticipated by late September or October.
Surging Supreme Court Petitions
- A minimum of twenty-one petitions about fundamental rights have been submitted to the Supreme Court, challenging the
Key Petitioners: The petitions are submitted by a wide coalition comprising political parties, civil society organisations, academics, the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL), and social media activists.
The primary argument posits that opponents contend that altering the tenure and retirement age of superior court judges directly threatens judicial independence and compromises the sovereignty of the populace.
The petitioners contend that the bill contravenes Articles 3 and 4 of the Constitution. They assert that a two-thirds majority in Parliament should not enact it, but rather that it should be subject to a national referendum.
- Domestic Political and Civil Opposition:
Opposition protests have been intensified by major political parties, including the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) and the Ilanka Tamil Arasu Kachchi (ITAK), which have launched vigorous campaigns.
ITAK has formally demanded a referendum, asserting that the change infringes upon public sovereignty.
Civil Society Support: Prominent trade unions, including the Sri Lanka Railway Station Masters’ Association (SLRSMA), have expressed their support for the BASL. They assert that implementing an “ad hoc” modification to judges’ tenures jeopardises the principle of the separation of powers.
- International Pressure and UN Warnings:
The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Margaret Satterthwaite, officially communicated concerns to President Anura Kumara Dissanayake.
The warning indicated that amending the retirement framework—particularly its application to judges already serving—poses the risk of undue influence from the executive and legislative branches and diminishes public confidence.
- Government Defence and Counterpetitions:
Addressing case backlogs: The government defends the bill as an essential measure to mitigate Sri Lanka’s substantial judicial backlog of over 1.1 million unresolved cases.
Counter-Petitions: Member of Parliament Lakshman Nipuna Arachchi of the NPP submitted a motion supporting the amendment. He contends that the bill falls within Parliament’s legislative competence and does not require a referendum.
Current Status: The Supreme Court is presently reviewing the petitions. A parliamentary debate and second reading on the bill are scheduled for late September or early October 2026, contingent upon the Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision.
End
