By Professor G. L. Peiris, D. Phil. (Oxford), Ph. D. (Sri Lanka); Former Minister of Justice, Constitutional Affairs and National Integration; Quondam Visiting Fellow of the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and London; Former Vice-Chancellor and Emeritus Professor of Law of the University of Colombo.

There is widespread interest in the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution of Sri Lanka in this country as well as abroad. This is especially so, after the widely disseminated comments by Ms Margaret Satterthwaite, the Special Rapporteur of the United Nations on the independence of the judiciary. The analysis contained in this article is being developed for publication in scholarly legal journals in the Commonwealth. The current version was written to cater to local interest.

I. Full Court

This was taken up as a threshold issue.

Given the importance of the matter, the majority of petitioners strenuously contended for the constitution of a Full Court consisting of all thirteen judges of the Supreme Court.

There is ample precedent for this in our country. In 1983, to adjudicate on an aspect of the Sixth Amendment, Neville Samarakoon CJ constituted a Bench which included the full strength of the Supreme Court, then consisting of nine judges. The same course of action was adopted by Sharvananda CJ in 1987 with regard to a challenge to the constitutionality of the Thirteenth Amendment and the Provincial Council Bills.

There are other situations in which Benches of seven judges have been constituted. Examples are provided by the orders by Nalin Perera CJ in 2018 in the premature dissolution of Parliament case and by Jayantha Jayasuriya CJ in the Easter Sunday bombing fundamental rights application in 2023.

The five judge Bench in the 22A case had no hesitation in rejecting the request for a Full Court.

This conclusion was founded on the premise that the hearing of the petitions “cannot be assigned a procedure outside the Constitution”. The governing provision is that “The Chief Justice may, if the question involved is in the opinion of the Chief Justice one of general or public importance, direct that such appeal, proceeding or matter be heard by a Bench comprising five or more judges of the Supreme Court”.

The substantial ground of rejection of the request for a Full Bench was that the Chief Justice had already exercised his discretion in appointing five judges, and that any variation of this would necessarily involve “an abdication by the Chief Justice of the constitutional role vested in him and usurpation of the discretion of the Chief Justice by the other judges of the Court”.

It was declared that, in the absence of provision conferring a right of appeal, revision or review, the application was misconceived. This, however, overlooks the reality that what was sought was not intervention by other judges to override an order of the Chief Justice, but a subsequent order by the Chief Justice himself to expand the composition of the Bench in light of cogent submissions by counsel representing the petitioners about the objective need for this initiative. This was not a situation in which, as a matter of strict procedure, the Chief Justice, having made an order, was finally and irrevocably functus and devoid of authority to take any further action in the matter at his own discretion. The invocation of a totally rigid constitutional fetter is fanciful and unrealistic, and defeats the ends of justice.

It was observed: “The Court cannot without any reasonable basis or justification give prominence to some selected cases and postpone other cases”. Nevertheless, the reasonable justification could readily be inferred from the circumstances, since the request by the petitioners was by no means self-centered or idiosyncratic but derived from the far-reaching implications of the matter at hand, evident even at a glance.

The Chief Justice nominated five judges to the adjudicating panel. Mr. Stephen Tiru, President of the Commonwealth Lawyers Association, who was an observer of the proceedings, as well as LawAsia, commented explicitly on the apparent absence of any explicable criterion governing the selection. Seniority on the Bench was clearly not the yardstick, since the judges selected occupied, from this perspective, slot numbers 6, 8, 11 and 13 out of a total complement of 13 judges of the Supreme Court.

Indisputably, the discretion is solely that of the Chief Justice. But, as my former teacher, Professor Sir William Wade of the University of Cambridge, never tired of pointing out, discretionary powers  in the public domain, however amply conferred, must always be exercised so as to inspire public confidence. He insisted that nothing is more inimical to the values of public law than the concept of unfettered discretion. Indeed, the entire body of common law represents as strong a disincentive as possible against arbitrariness and caprice.

II. Consultation

The Court gave short shrift to the petitioners’ argument relating to the failure by the government to conduct a consultative process.

The singular absence of consultation was quite manifest. The Minister of Justice, in reply to explicit questions by the Opposition on the floor of Parliament, stated that no change relating to the retirement age of judges had been decided upon. Even two weeks before the Amendment was gazetted, the Secretary to the Ministry of Justice declared that she was unaware of any proposed change. The Bar Association, despite persevering efforts, was able to obtain an interview with the President only after a final decision by the Cabinet and subsequent to publication of the Bill in the Gazette. The Maha Sangha, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference, the Church of Ceylon, the Bar Association of Sri Lanka, 43 trade unions as well as a large number of academics and civil society organizations protested vehemently, but to no avail.

The Court, as the ground of dismissal, made the surprising statement that “the Parties failed to show any legal provision which has made it incumbent upon the government to ‘conduct a consultative process with the relevant stakeholders’ before it decides to gazette the Bill and place it in the Order Paper of Parliament”.

In 2022, when the United Kingdom embarked upon a comprehensive review of the retirement age of judges, and the government published proposals for public scrutiny and debate, there were no fewer than 1,200 responses from stakeholders during the span of over a year. And yet,  there was no coercive statutory provision of any kind which made this consultative process compulsory. On the contrary, it was the cumulative thrust of comity, recognition of the value of consensus and the continuity of democratic tradition which impelled the deciding authority to regard the range and depth of public consultation as indispensable. Not even the most unrepentant Positivist would deny its necessity in the absence of statutory imperatives.

In any event, internationally acknowledged practice is unequivocal. The Venice Commission and Report on Constitutional Amendment has this to say: “Constitutional amendments should only be made after extensive, open and free public discussions involving the various political forces, non-governmental organizations, citizens’ associations, academia and the media, and with an adequate time frame for meaningful debate”.

In the specific context of judicial reforms, the Venice Commission has recently reaffirmed that “It is essential to continue to have proper public consultations before a Parliamentary vote”. Nothing could be more explicit.

III. Bias

One of the principal contentions on behalf of the petitioners was that, since the impugned measure has the effect of conferring on the decision makers an extension of judicial tenure, with accompanying advantages in terms of salary and all other perquisites of office, the public perception of probable lack of objectivity or bias would contravene the tenets of natural justice.

The Court adopted the approach that the disqualifying interest must necessarily take the form of “a direct pecuniary or personal interest in the specific outcome as between the litigants”. This limitation on the scope of bias as “a direct personal and case-specific interest”, excluding an “institutional stake”, is an unwarranted gloss on the law, clearly inconsistent with judicial authority of the highest standing.

In re Pinochet (No. 2), speaking in the House of Lords, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, commenting on the scope of the rule against bias, accepted its applicability in two distinct contexts: “first, where the judge has a financial or proprietary interest; and secondly where, although he has no such interest, his conduct or relationship may give rise to a suspicion that he is not impartial”.

In the 22A proceedings, the Court unhesitatingly opted for a subjective interpretation of the notion of bias, asking the question whether the decision-maker believed that he was receiving a benefit arising from a “legislative bribe”. This is reflected in the emphatic assertion: “We hold that there cannot be any such conflict in the mind of the judge”. It is respectfully submitted that this is the wrong question to ask. The issue is not whether the judge, in his own mind, considered himself the recipient of an advantage, but rather whether “a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased” (Porter v Magill).

The operative criterion, then, is apparent or potential bias which extends beyond direct interest to the underlying purpose of sustaining public confidence in judicial impartiality.

An identifiable flaw in the Court’s reasoning derives from placing increase of salaries of judges and retrospective enhancement of the age of retirement of judges on the same level. The Court categorically asserted: “We have to apply one yardstick to both”. However, while salaries must obviously be increased over a period of thirty or so years during which a judge may hold office, the same considerations hardly apply to extension of duration of tenure, departing from constitutional postulates which determined the period of office at the time of commencement of the appointment.

This is vividly illustrated by the attitude of Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma, who held office in Hong Kong when, in 2019, the age of retirement of judges of the Supreme Court was extended from 60 to 65 years. Chief Justice Ma, in expressing the reasons for his decision, which continues to resonate as an inspiring precedent, said that although in terms of the law enacted midstream during his judicial tenure, he was entitled to serve for an additional five years, he would refrain from doing so and relinquish office at the previously designated age of retirement. He was doing so to give effect to his own settled expectation, and that of all others, that he would retire at the age which applied at the time he took office. He considered that this course of action was conducive to the health of the judicial system which he wished to transmit, in its full integrity, to his successors.

Another observation by the Sri Lankan Court gives rise to consternation. This relates to the Court’s attitude to a seminal statute, the Judicature Act,No.2 of 1978, which sets out, inter alia, the procedure to be followed in the event of a judge having an interest in the subject matter of a case before him. Their Lordships commented: “We regret to note a gradual increase in the number of vexatious petitions being filed in Courts. We think the time has come for Courts to give a purposive interpretation to section 49 of the Judicature Act rather than trying to blindly follow the said provision”.

The suggestion that a court may properly, at its own discretion, apply or disregard a binding provision of statute law is likely to occasion more than passing misgivings.

IV. Role of the Constitutional Council

The effect of Article 41C, read with Article 107(1) of the Constitution, is that concurrence by the Constitutional Council is a condition precedent for appointment of Superior Court judges by the President.

One of the objections to 22A was that the Constitutional Council had approved the appointment of these judges only up to the time indicated in Article 107(5) of the Constitution and that any extension of tenure beyond this period would be without the concurrence of the Constitutional Council, and therefore in violation of a mandatory constitutional requirement.

This contention was disposed of by the Court on two grounds. First, the Court declared: “The incumbent judges of the Superior Courts whose age of retirement would be increased if the Bill is passed into law, are judges whose appointments have been approved by the Constitutional Council after due process”. This overlooks the consideration that the approval was time-bound and cannot plausibly be construed as open-ended, covering any period which a subsequent legislature might choose to prescribe.

The second reason was stated as follows: “We have already adverted to the fact that they have been serving in the Judiciary well before the present government came to power”. It is difficult to understand the rationale spelt out in these terms. Whatever government was in power, the issue is whether approval granted by the Constitutional Council in respect of a particular appointment envisages only the period during which the appointment was thought to be operative at the time concurrence was given, or whether approval is infinitely elastic in terms of time frame. There is obviously no particular sanctity attaching to judicial appointments made prior to, or after, a specific point in time.

V. Selectivity and “Court Capture”

By way of refutation of this basic criticism of the constitutional innovation, the Court placed heavy reliance on the generality of application of the proposed reforms. Their Lordships declared: “It is important that we bear in mind two important distinctions that were referred to by the learned Solicitor-General, that being the extension is non-discriminatory in that it applies to all judges, and it is non-discretionary, in that the extension is not at the whim and fancy of the Executive”.

Empirical reality militates against the validity of this contention.

During the first half of this year, 2026, three judges of the Supreme Court retired. If the proposed extension of tenure had been effected at the beginning of the year, these judges would have been entitled to its benefit and would have continued in office for an additional two years.

In May 2026, just three months before the 22nd Amendment was presented to Parliament, the President of the Court of Appeal, after a distinguished career spanning 30 years, retired from service. He did so at a time when no fewer than four vacancies existed on the Bench of the Supreme Court. The President of the Bar Association, in his address at the ceremonial sitting to mark the retirement of the judge, publicly expressed regret that the country had been deprived of his service at the apex court, despite repeated interventions by the Bar to prevent this injustice. On 3 September 2026, just days before the vote in Parliament took place on 22A, another judge of the Court of Appeal retired, not having been promoted to fill one of the vacancies in the Supreme Court.

These circumstances, objectively viewed, detract substantially from the merit of the argument premised on the absence of discretion and discrimination.

VI. An Appeal to Patriotic Sentiment

In the face of attempts to convey to the Court, with a sense of urgency, the ill omens in other jurisdictions, Their Lordships were inclined to push back energetically by denigrating these apprehensions and regarding the circumstances of our country as special. The Court was strident in its assertion: “We can only reiterate that the judiciary of this country consists of men of courage and men of wisdom who have always and who will always maintain the independence of the judiciary under varying circumstances”. It was claimed: “This is clearly established by the fact that nobody, not even the Bar Association of Sri Lanka, has ever complained, nor has there been any allegation or an iota of suspicion that the judges of this country surrendered their much cherished independence”. The bedrock of this approach was an appeal to patriotism: “Disparaging our country to advance an argument at the expense of our national reputation is unfortunate and regrettable”.

Sadly, the state of the world we live in is far less sanguine. History is replete with examples which bear testimony to the truth that descent into autocracy does not generally happen by one fell swoop but takes place incrementally over time, for the most part by steps which are typically modest and even imperceptible. To persuade ourselves that we are insulated against the common experience of humankind and are, alone, invulnerable is fraught with the gravest danger. The dynamics of history do not admit of anomalous exceptions. This is why “the gritty resolve of this Court to uphold constitutional obligations” may not, by itself, provide entirely satisfying reassurance.

VII. Conclusion

The longevity of amendments to the Constitution of Sri Lanka during the last five decades has not been impressive. The future will decide the wisdom and viability of the 22nd Amendment.

The post SC Determination on 22A: A Law and Policy Critique – GL Peiris writes appeared first on Newswire.

Parliament is scheduled to vote on the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution Bill and the Judicature (Amendment) Bill at 7.00 pm today (25), following the conclusion of the two-day Second Reading debate.

The parliamentary debate on the two Bills entered its second and final day today, after commencing yesterday (24).

The Supreme Court determination on the Bills was presented to Parliament by Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne on September 22.

According to the determination, the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution Bill does not require approval through a referendum and can be passed with a special two-thirds majority in Parliament.

The Speaker also informed Parliament that the Supreme Court had determined that the Judicature (Amendment) Bill could be passed by a simple majority.

The vote on the two Bills is scheduled to take place following the conclusion of today’s debate. (Newswire)

The post Parliament to vote on 22A and Judicature Amendment Bills today appeared first on Newswire.

Minister of Justice Harshana Nanayakkara told Parliament today (24) that the proposed 22nd Amendment to the Constitution is not intended to exercise control or suppress anyone, but is aimed at speeding up the hearing of cases and delivering justice to the public.

Opening the parliamentary debate on the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution Bill and the Judicature (Amendment) Bill, the Minister said the proposed changes form part of a broader reform of the country’s judicial process.

“We are not bringing this amendment to be authoritative or to control or suppress. This is to quickly hear cases and provide justice to the people,” Nanayakkara said.

He said the measures were not being introduced in isolation but as part of a comprehensive reform process which the government began in 2024.

The Minister said the reforms were also in line with a pledge made to the public and the mandate received by the government.

Referring to the Government’s policy statement, A Thriving Nation – A Beautiful Life, Nanayakkara said it had set out several key principles for the functioning of the country’s judicial and legal systems.

He identified these principles as fair and equal protection of the law, transparency and efficiency, independence and public confidence.

“It is based on these principles that we promised the people that we would operate the judicial system. Today is a day when one part of that promise is being fulfilled, these two Bills,” he said.

Responding to criticism of the proposed changes, Nanayakkara said the Opposition was free to express its views but maintained that the government would continue with its reform agenda.

“The Opposition can say whatever they want. We will continue this journey forward for the public,” he said.

The parliamentary debate commenced after Nanayakkara presented the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution Bill and the Judicature (Amendment) Bill for their second reading this morning. (Newswire)

The post “22A not to control, but to deliver justice faster” – Justice Minister appeared first on Newswire.

The main opposition Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) staged a protest near Parliament in Battaramulla on Thursday, calling on the government to withdraw the proposed 22nd Amendment to the Constitution.

The protest, held near Polduwa Junction, drew a sizeable crowd despite rainy conditions, with Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa joining SJB members and supporters.

Protesters demanded that the government withdraw the proposed constitutional amendment, which the SJB has strongly opposed, raising concerns over its potential impact on judicial independence and the rule of law.

The demonstration coincided with Parliament taking up the 22nd Amendment for debate on Thursday, with proceedings scheduled to continue on Friday.

The Supreme Court has determined that the proposed amendment does not require approval at a referendum and can be passed with a special majority in Parliament. (Newswire)

The post SJB stages protest near Parliament against 22nd Amendment appeared first on Newswire.

Traffic congestion has been reported around Polduwa Junction and Diyatha Uyana in Battaramulla due to an SJB-led protest against the proposed 22nd Amendment to the Constitution.

The two-day parliamentary debate on the amendment begins today, with a vote expected on Friday. (Newswire)

The post Traffic congestion near Parliament as SJB protests against 22nd Amendment appeared first on Newswire.

The Speaker of the Parliament of Sri Lanka, Jagath Wickramaratne today announced the determination of the Supreme Court on the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution Bill and the Judicature Amendment Bill, stating that it was consistent with the Constitution of Sri Lanka. 

Announcing the Supreme Court’s interpretation, the Speaker further said the court has determined that the provisions of the 22nd Amendment Bill or any part thereof does not require approval by the people at a referendum by virtue of the provisions of the Article 83 of the Constitution.

“I wish to announce that I have received the determination of the Supreme Court in respect of the bill titled 22nd Amendment to the Constitution and the Judicature Amendment, which were challenged in the Supreme Court under Article 121 (1) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has determined that the provisions of the 22nd Amendment Bill or any part thereof does not require approval by the people at a referendum by virtue of the provisions of the Article 83 of the Constitution. In the Provisor appearing in Clause 2 of the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution Bill, the phrase ‘67 ta elembena dinaya’ appearing shall therein be replaced with the phrase ‘67 ta sampurna kala dinaya’. The following to be added as the second provisor to the Clause 2 of the 22nd Amendment Bill, provided further that the term limits of 06 years set out in the first provisor will not apply to any person holding the Office of the Chief Justice as the date of coming into operation of this Act. 

“The Supreme Court has further determined that the provisions of the Judicature Amendment Bill are not inconsistent with the Constitution of Sri Lanka and may be passed by the simple majority of the Parliament,” Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne announced today (22). 

The 22nd Amendment to the Constitution Bill, relating to the extension of the retirement age of judges, was presented to Parliament on August 18 by Minister of Justice Harshana Nanayakkara.

Subsequently, various parties challenged the constitutionality of the Bill by filing petitions before the Supreme Court, and accordingly the total number of petitions filed was 67.

These petitions were examined before a five‑judge bench of the Supreme Court presided over by Chief Justice Preethi Padman Srasena, with Justices Achala Wengappuli, Arjuna Obeyesekere, Sampath Abeykoon, and Gihan Kulatunga.

On September 2, after concluding the hearings, the Supreme Court bench announced that the interpretation regarding the constitutionality of the Bill would be referred to the Speaker.

Meanwhile, the Parliamentary Business Committee recently decided that the debate on the 22nd Constitutional Amendment Bill will be held on the 24th and 25th of September. (Newswire)

The post 22 A : No referendum needed, 2/3rd enough appeared first on Newswire.

The Speaker of Parliament has received the Supreme Court’s determination on the 22nd Constitutional Amendment, the Speaker’s Office confirmed in a statement today.

It is reported that the confidential opinion of the Court will be formally announced in Parliament tomorrow (22). The determination was conveyed to the Speaker following the conclusion of hearings earlier this month.

The 22nd Constitutional Amendment Bill and the Judicial Reforms Bill were presented to Parliament on August 18 by Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara. 

In response, more than 65 petitions were filed challenging the Bills, which were taken up for hearing on September 1 before a five‑judge bench presided over by the Chief Justice.

The hearings concluded on September 2, with the bench stating that its determination on the constitutionality of the Bills would be referred to the Speaker.

Meanwhile, the Parliamentary Business Committee has scheduled the debate on the 22nd Constitutional Amendment Bill for September 24 and 25, setting the stage for a crucial discussion on the proposed reforms. (Newswire)

The post Speaker receives Supreme Court determination on 22nd Amendment appeared first on Newswire.

The Parliamentary Business for the next Parliamentary Week, scheduled to be held from September 22 to 25, has been decided at the meeting of the Committee on Parliamentary Business held yesterday (10) under the chairmanship of Speaker, Jagath Wickramaratne.

On each day that Parliament meets, the period from 9.30 am to 10.00 am has been allocated for Parliamentary Business specified under Standing Orders 22(1) to 22(6). 

The period from 10.00 am to 11.00 am has been allocated for Questions for Oral Answers, while the period from 11.00 am to 11.30 am has been allocated for Questions under Standing Order 27(2).

• Agenda for Tuesday, September 22:

From 11.30 am to 5.00 pm, the Orders published in Extraordinary Gazette No. 2497/37 under the Petroleum Resources Act and the Promotion of Export Agriculture (Amendment) Bill (Second Reading) will be taken up for debate at.

Thereafter, at 5.00 pm, the Tredso Development Foundation (Incorporation) Bill, a Private Member’s Bill, is scheduled to be taken up for Second Reading and thereafter referred to the Legislative Standing Committee.

From 5.00 pm to 5.30 pm, an Motion at the Adjournment Time moved by the Opposition is scheduled to be taken up for debate.

• Agenda for Wednesday, September 23:

From 11.30 am to 5.00 pm, the debate on the Chartered Institute of Media Professionals of Sri Lanka Bill (Second Reading) will be held.

Thereafter, the period from 5.00 pm to 5.30 pm has been allocated for Questions at the Adjournment Time.

• Agenda for Thursday, September 24:

From 11.30 am to 7.00 pm, time has been allocated for the Second Reading debate on the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution Bill and the Judicature (Amendment) Bill.

It was agreed that the two-day debate would be held subject to the Speaker making an announcement to Parliament following the delivery of the Supreme Court determination on the petitions filed against the respective Bills under Article 121 of the Constitution.

• Agenda for Friday, September 25:

From 11.30 am to 7.00 pm, it has been decided to continue the Second Reading debate on the Twenty-Second Amendment to the Constitution Bill and the Judicature (Amendment) Bill for the second day. (Newswire)

The post 22nd Amendment, Media Professionals Bill to be taken up in Parliament next week appeared first on Newswire.

The Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) met with representatives of the Free Operations Centre at party headquarters to discuss opposition unity in the wake of the 22nd Constitutional Amendment debate and approval in Parliament.

Both sides reviewed how opposition parties and stakeholders acted collectively during the parliamentary process and agreed that further joint discussions are needed.

It was decided that in the coming week, opposition political parties, trade unions, and civil organizations will convene for a united dialogue to determine future actions.

Present at the meeting from the SJB were General Secretary Ranjith Madduma Bandara, MPs Sujeewa Senasinghe, Kavinda Jayawardena, J.C. Alawathuwala, and Sujith Sanjaya Perera. 

Representing the Free Operations Centre were Attorney Shiraz Lakthilaka, President’s Counsel Maithri Gunaratne, and former MPs Premanath Dolawatta and Saman Rathnapriya, along with others. (Newswire)

The post SJB holds talks with Free Operations Centre on 22nd Amendment appeared first on Newswire.

Sri Lanka’s main opposition Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) staged a protest in Colombo Fort against the proposed 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, led by Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa.

SJB parliamentarians, party members and supporters joined the demonstration, voicing their opposition to the proposed constitutional amendment.

Addressing the protest, Premadasa said the SJB would use every democratic means available to defeat the 22nd Amendment.

“We will do everything within our democratic means to defeat the 22nd Amendment,” Premadasa said.

The Opposition Leader said his party would continue its campaign against the proposed amendment both inside and outside Parliament, while pursuing its opposition through democratic means.

The protest comes amid heightened political and legal debate over the proposed 22nd Amendment. (Newswire)

The post SJB takes to the streets against 22A; Sajith vows democratic fight appeared first on Newswire.

The President of the Commonwealth Lawyers’ Association, Steven Thiru, observed proceedings at the Supreme Court yesterday as hearings began on petitions challenging the Government’s proposed 22nd Amendment to the Constitution.

Thiru’s participation follows his warning in July that Sri Lanka risks repeating Zimbabwe’s controversial judicial crisis if it proceeds with plans to extend the retirement age of sitting superior court judges without broad public consultation. 

Addressing a public forum organised by the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL), he stressed that the issue was not the proposed retirement age itself, but the timing, manner, and application of the constitutional amendment.

Hearings on the petitions commenced yesterday (01) and continued for nearly 12 hours until 10.30 pm, underscoring the intensity of the legal challenge. A total of 67 petitions have been filed against the Bill, including 41 submitted online.

Today (02) marks the second consecutive day of hearings before a five‑judge bench comprising Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena, Achala Wengappuli, Arjuna Obeyesekere, Sampath Abeykoon, and Gihan Kulatunga. 

Lawyers representing the petitioners are currently making submissions challenging the constitutionality of the Bill. Once the petitioners’ arguments conclude, counsel for the intervening petitioners are scheduled to present their submissions. 

The Attorney General is expected to address the Court thereafter, focusing on the Bill’s constitutional validity. (Newswire)

The post Commonwealth Lawyers’ Chief observes Sri Lanka’s 22nd Amendment hearings appeared first on Newswire.

The Supreme Court will commence consideration of the 67 petitions filed against the Government’s 22nd Amendment to the Constitution Bill at 10.00 am today.

Of the petitions, 41 have been lodged through the online system, marking a notable feature in the proceedings.

In addition, five petitions have been filed challenging the Judicial Organizations Amendment Bill presented to Parliament.

Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena has appointed a five‑judge bench to examine the cases, with himself presiding. 

The other members are Achala Wengappuli, Arjuna Obeysekera, Sampath Abeykoon, and Gihan Kulatunga.

The Court last evening issued a notice to the Attorney General directing him to present submissions regarding the petitions. (Newswire)

The post Supreme Court to begin hearing on 22nd Amendment petitions today appeared first on Newswire.

Executive Committee Member of the National People’s Power (NPP), Lal Wijenayake, has filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the 22nd Constitutional Amendment.

He has requested a ruling that the amendment must be subjected to a referendum for public approval.

Issuing a statement, Wijenayake argued that framing the opposition to the 22nd Amendment merely as a contest between Government and Opposition misleads the public. 

He described the struggle as one to defend judicial independence and to safeguard the right of citizens to live in a disciplined society.

“The choice before the people is not whether to protect a political party, but whether to preserve for future generations the right to live as disciplined citizens in a disciplined society, won through long‑term dedication and struggle,” his statement read.

In addition to his personal petition, Wijenayake, a convener and founding member of the Lawyers for Democracy, has filed another petition through the organization. 

That petition contends that the 22nd Amendment is inconsistent with Article 3 of the Constitution and therefore must be approved by referendum.

The deadline for filing petitions against the 22nd Amendment is set to expire today, with multiple challenges already lodged before the Court. (Newswire)

The post NPP’s Lal Wijenayake files Supreme Court petition against 22nd Amendment appeared first on Newswire.

Justice Minister Harsha Nanayakkara declared that the government will not step back “even by a single step” from its effort to bring the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, despite mounting opposition.

Speaking at the Badulla District convention of the Rata Hadana Jana Balaya movement, the Minister said the amendment is part of wider reforms aimed at strengthening the judicial system and ensuring corrupt individuals are brought before the courts.

He noted that decades of neglect had left the system paralyzed, with over 1.1 million cases pending. The government’s reforms, he said, are designed to make proceedings faster and more efficient, including changes to the retirement age of judges.

Nanayakkara rejected claims that the amendment targets a single judge, stressing that under the Judicial Organizations Act, the retirement age of all judges would be increased uniformly by two years. “If we tried to extend only one judge’s age, that argument would be valid. But here, everyone’s age increases equally,” he said.

Responding to critics who questioned the timing, the Minister asked why the amendment should be delayed until December. “If it is not good now, how does it become good later? By the end of this year you will see results. Justice will be fulfilled. The steps taken by this government will not go back. That is not the nature of this government,” he asserted. (Newswire)

The post Justice Minister vows no retreat on 22nd Amendment appeared first on Newswire.

The Government Medical Officers’ Association (GMOA) and the Government Dental Surgeons’ Association have announced their decision to oppose the proposed 22nd Amendment to the Constitution.

Representatives of both associations said they had reached consensus to act jointly against the proposal together with other professional organizations, including the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL). 

Their stance adds to the growing resistance from professional bodies, civil society, and activists. 

Several petitions have already been filed before the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka challenging the amendment. (Newswire)

The post GMOA and Dental Surgeons join opposition to 22nd Amendment appeared first on Newswire.

Two additional intervening petitions have been submitted to the Supreme Court in support of the Government’s 22nd Amendment to the Constitution Bill, which has been presented to Parliament. 

One petition was filed by leader of the New Sinhala Heritage, Sarath Manamendra, while the other was submitted by K. Sarath Lal Perera, General Secretary of the National Organization for the Protection of Retired Rights.

The petitions state that the Bill has been presented in a lawful manner and request the Court to rule that it can be passed without the need for a referendum. (Newswire)

The post Two more petitions filed in support of 22nd Amendment Bill appeared first on Newswire.

Artist Iraj Weeraratne and a group representing the Social Media Journalists for Democracy have filed a petition before the Supreme Court challenging the proposed 22nd Amendment to the Constitution.

The petition was filed on Tuesday (25), opposing the proposed constitutional amendment.

Iraj Weeraratne, Nilantha Sathsara Gamage, Chamara Wijesuriya and Nandana Kuda Meegoda appeared as petitioners representing the organisation.

The group is seeking the Supreme Court’s intervention over the proposed 22nd Amendment. (Newswire)

The post Musician Iraj-led group challenges 22nd Amendment before Supreme Court appeared first on Newswire.

The 22nd Amendment to the Constitution is being used as a factor to postpone the Presidential Election, Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) MP Gamini Waleboda alleged.

Addressing the media, MP Waleboda said that Cabinet approval has been granted for the proposal in this regard and it is expected to be presented to Parliament in the coming week.

He further said it has been proposed to amend paragraph (b) of Article 83 of the Constitution by replacing the words “exceeding six years” with “exceeding five years”.

“The Amendment would require a two-thirds majority in Parliament and will be presented to the Supreme Court, after which the necessary measures will be taken based on the court order,” he said.

MP Waleboda revealed that the President and his team are facing challenges in securing a two-thirds majority in Parliament as the SLPP intends to field its own candidate for the Presidential Election. 

He further alleged that the President intends to use his executive powers to dissolve Parliament if he fails to obtain the necessary two-thirds majority and that a Gazette notification in this regard has already been prepared. 

“We have received information and many people have also questioned us on the fact that a Gazette notification on dissolving Parliament has been prepared and is to be issued the same day if the President fails to obtain the necessary two-thirds majority,” the MP said. 

MP Gamini Waleboda hinted that there was a possibility for changes in Sri Lanka’s politics soon. (Newswire) 

The post SLPP MP alleges 22A being used to postpone Presidential Election appeared first on Newswire.