Justice delayed, reform deferred

Judicial independence is the foundation of any democracy. Any attempt by the Executive, the Judiciary itself or any other institution to interfere with the administration of justice must be challenged.

But independence alone cannot sustain a justice system.

A Judiciary exists not only to remain free from interference but to dispense justice. For citizens, the strength of the legal system is measured not simply by constitutional safeguards, but by whether cases progress, judgments arrive, and remedies retain meaning.

That is the larger question behind Sri Lanka's debate over extending the retirement age of judges.

Much of the argument has centred on whether the proposed reform risks weakening judicial independence. That concern deserves careful scrutiny. Democracies cannot afford institutions that bend to political pressure or executive influence.

But another question deserves equal scrutiny: what happens when an institution protected by principle struggles to perform its most basic function?

Sri Lanka's courts are carrying more than 1.1 million pending cases. The burden falls most heavily on the lower courts, where delay directly affects citizens. For someone waiting years for a verdict, justice is not a constitutional abstraction. It is time lost, opportunities forgone and confidence diminished, not to mention crushing costs!

This backlog did not appear with one amendment or one administration. It reflects years of shortages, inadequate resources, weak infrastructure and procedures that allow cases to drift.

A justice system cannot preserve public confidence by defending principles while allowing performance to decay.

This is where the legal profession must turn its advocacy inward.

The legal profession does not merely work within the justice system; it shapes it.

Why did the profession tolerate a culture in which adjournments became routine? Why has reform of legal procedure never acquired the urgency reserved for constitutional disputes? Why has access to justice remained an aspiration while delay became the defining feature of litigation?

These are uncomfortable questions. They are also legitimate ones.

The retirement-age debate has drawn attention to judicial independence. It should also draw attention to the condition of the justice system itself.

Critics argue that extending judicial tenure could affect independence or restrict opportunities for younger judges. Those concerns deserve examination.

But so does another question: in a system carrying more than one million unresolved cases, should experience be treated as a liability?

Senior judges bring institutional memory, mentor younger colleagues and navigate complex legal questions. Renewal is necessary, but so is experience.

The debate exposes an uncomfortable inconsistency, as one lawyer pointed out in his column in Monday's FT.

Within the legal profession, experience is prized. Senior lawyers continue to practise, teach, write, advise institutions and shape public life well beyond traditional retirement ages.

Why should experience become a problem only when it resides on the Bench?

If the legal profession can mobilise with such speed when judicial independence is perceived to be under threat, why has it not mobilised with equal resolve against delays that have denied timely justice to generations of litigants? That is not a political question. It is a professional one.

The International Association of Judges this week urged the Government to reconsider the proposal, not because altering retirement ages is inherently objectionable, but because of what it described as the "widely perceived" purpose behind the measure.

That distinction is revealing. The controversy is now driven as much by perception as by law. For a profession trained to distinguish evidence from inference, that should be an uncomfortable place to stand.

The legal profession has every right to challenge governments. That duty is indispensable in a democracy. But it has another duty that receives far less attention: confronting the failures within the system it serves.

Judicial independence is not an end in itself. It exists so that justice can be delivered.

Until the legal profession pursues reform with the same determination that it resists ‘perceived’ encroachments on judicial independence, one question will continue to linger: who is defending justice itself?