Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa on Tuesday cited a previous Supreme Court determination in Parliament, arguing that any constitutional amendment affecting the retirement age of Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judges serving in office would require approval at a referendum.
Speaking under Standing Order 27(2), Premadasa referred to the Supreme Court’s 2022 determination on the Inland Revenue (Amendment) Bill, which stated that the retirement age of Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judges is specifically provided for in the Constitution.
Quoting the determination, he said the court had held that “any Constitutional amendment to the retirement age or the period of office impacting on incumbent judges, whether directly or indirectly, will impinge on the independence of the judiciary and be violative of Article 3, which requires a Referendum.”
Premadasa questioned the government’s proposal to extend the retirement age of Supreme Court judges, noting that the move has already been opposed by the Bar Association of Sri Lanka and several local and international legal bodies.
He also questioned why the government had not prioritised broader judicial reforms despite a 2023 report prepared for the Ministry of Justice with Asian Development Bank technical assistance, which focused on systemic reforms to improve court efficiency.
The Opposition Leader called on the government to explain how extending judges’ retirement age alone would address the backlog of approximately 1.1 million pending cases and urged it to engage with stakeholders before proceeding with any constitutional amendment. (Newswire)