Thursday Sep 03, 2026
Thursday Sep 03, 2026
Thursday, 3 September 2026 00:28 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
The Supreme Court yesterday concluded the oral hearing of petitions challenging the proposed 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, with its determination on the constitutionality of the Bill to be communicated confidentially to the Speaker of Parliament.
Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena announced at the conclusion of submissions that the Court’s determination would be sent to the Speaker in due course, while directing petitioners to file their reply submissions in writing before 3 p.m. today (3).
Under the constitutional process governing pre-enactment review of legislation, the Supreme Court communicates its determination to the Speaker, who subsequently announces it to Parliament.
The proceedings, however, drew concern from Commonwealth Lawyers Association President Steven Thiru, who was present in Court and said counsel for the petitioners had sought, but were not given, an opportunity to make an oral reply after submissions by the respondents and intervening parties.
Thiru said counsel were instead directed to file their replies in writing. He said that, in proceedings of this nature, petitioners’ counsel were generally afforded an opportunity to reply orally, and described the manner in which the hearing concluded as unusual and unfortunate.
The petitions were heard by a five-member Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice Surasena and Justices Achala Wengappuli, Arjuna Obeysekera, Sampath Abeykoon, and Gihan Kulatunga.
Solicitor General Viraj Dayaratne, appearing for the Attorney General, told Court that the Government had presented the proposed 22nd Amendment and the Judicature (Amendment) Bill with the objective of expanding Sri Lanka’s judicial system and improving its efficiency.
He rejected petitioners’ arguments that the proposed constitutional amendment violated Articles 3 and 4 of the Constitution, maintaining that they had failed to establish how such a violation arose.
Dayaratne submitted that the Amendment reduced rather than increased the powers of the Executive and said the Government would accept the position if the proposal affected the independence of the judiciary, but maintained that no such constitutional violation arose.
Addressing the proposed increase in the retirement age of judges, he referred to judicial retirement arrangements in the US and the UK and argued that Sri Lanka had historically maintained a higher retirement age for judges than for public servants.
He told Court that its task was to determine whether the proposed Bills were consistent with the Constitution and that the question of a referendum would arise only where provisions were found to require such approval.
President’s Counsel Nigel Hatch, appearing for petitioner and MP Lakshman Nipuna Arachchi, also submitted that the proposed constitutional amendment did not require a referendum.
Hatch referred to the 20th Amendment, under which the number of judges in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal was increased without a referendum, and argued that increasing the retirement age of judges under the proposed 22nd Amendment could not, on that basis, be treated as requiring one.
He also noted that the 1972 Constitution fixed judges’ retirement age at 63 years and that the 1978 Constitution increased it to 65 years. He maintained that the proposed change neither violated Article 3 nor undermined judicial independence.
President’s Counsel Mohan Weerakoon, appearing for intervening petitioner and Nawa Sihala Urumaya Leader Sarath Manamendra, similarly argued that increasing judges’ retirement age would not compromise judicial independence.
He cited increases in life expectancy in Sri Lanka and retirement-age provisions applying to judges in the UK in support of the position that the proposed Amendment could be enacted without a referendum.
Attorney-at-Law Arulpragasam, appearing for another intervening petitioner, also rejected arguments that an increase in the judicial retirement age would undermine judicial independence.
He cited judicial retirement arrangements in the US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Jamaica in support of his submission that an increase in Sri Lanka would not by itself require approval at a referendum.
A record number of petitions had been filed before the Supreme Court challenging provisions of the proposed constitutional Amendment. The Court’s determination will establish whether the Bill may be enacted by Parliament in its present form or whether any provisions require a special majority and/or approval by the people at a referendum.
