A knowledge exchange and orientation programme for 20 High Court Judges from Sri Lanka was conducted at the Indian National Judicial Academy (NJA), Bhopal, from August 10–14, 2026, according to the High Commission of India in Sri Lanka. 

The programme featured nine thematic sessions covering judicial function and decision‑making, leadership and strategic thinking, integrity and accountability in governance, technology use in courts and digital transformation, court and case management, pre‑trial procedures and plea agreements, commercial arbitration and ADR mechanisms, cybercrime and electronic evidence, as well as managing judicial stress and wellness.

The Indian High Commission noted that the initiative was designed following positive feedback from an earlier cohort of 20 Sri Lankan High Court Judges who attended a similar programme in December 2025.

The programme was organized under the enhanced capacity‑building framework announced by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi during his April 2025 State Visit to Sri Lanka, which provides 700 customized training slots annually for Sri Lankan professionals. 

With 300 civil service officers trained annually under an MoU between India’s National Centre for Good Governance and the Sri Lanka Institute of Development Administration, India’s expanded capacity‑building effort now benefits 1,000 Sri Lankans each year. (Newswire)

The post Knowledge exchange programme held in India for Sri Lankan High Court Judges appeared first on Newswire.

Mahanayake Thera of the Malwatta Chapter of the Siyam Nikaya in Sri Lanka, Most Venerable Thibbatuwawe Sri Sumangala Mahanayake Thera, has said that the President has not responded to a letter sent by the Mahanayake Theras regarding the proposed extension of judges’ retirement age.

Speaking during a meeting with representatives of a human rights organisation in Kandy, the Thera said that, from ancient times, the Maha Sangha had advised rulers, both verbally and in writing, on matters of national importance.

“In other situations in the past, a reply was sent acknowledging receipt. But on this matter, we have not received a reply as of now. We have not even been informed whether the letter was received,” he said.

At the same meeting, the organisation’s Executive Director, Subhashana Subbavikrama, said that in many countries, judges’ tenure extends beyond the age of 60 and that extending the retirement age in Sri Lanka would therefore not pose a problem. (Newswire)

The post Mahanayake Thera says no response from President on judges’ retirement age letter appeared first on Newswire.

The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) has expressed hope that the government will reconsider the proposed constitutional amendment to extend the retirement age of judges following discussions with President Anura Kumara Dissanayake.

Speaking to reporters after the meeting at the Presidential Secretariat, BASL President Rajeev Amarasuriya said the Association explained in detail the reasons behind the legal community’s opposition to the proposed amendment.

He said the BASL delegation included President’s Counsel, former BASL presidents, academics and other legal experts, including Prof. Savitri Goonesekere and Lal Wijenayake.

Amarasuriya said the President also explained his position and views during what he described as a good and frank discussion.

The BASL’s final request was that a change of this nature should only be made following a broad expert consultation involving not only the legal profession but also academics, researchers and others who have studied the issue.

He stressed that the BASL’s position was not directed against any individual and should not be viewed as a confrontation.

“This is not a fight against anyone,” he said, adding that both sides had presented their respective views during the meeting.

Amarasuriya said the BASL hoped the discussion would lead to a wider consultation and eventually allow the proposed amendment to be reconsidered before a final decision is reached.

Responding to questions over personal attacks directed at judges amid the controversy, Amarasuriya said the BASL did not support personal criticism or attacks against anyone.

Asked whether the two sides had reached an agreement, he said no such conclusion had been reached, but expressed optimism following the talks.

Amarasuriya noted that amending the Constitution was within the government’s powers, while the BASL also had the right to express its opposition if it believed such a move was wrong.

He said the BASL expected the President, as a mature political leader who had long advocated for the rule of law and judicial independence, to carefully consider the concerns raised.

“I hope that after today’s discussion, this will move in a positive direction,” Amarasuriya said. (Newswire)

The post BASL hopes President will reconsider judges’ retirement age amendment after talks appeared first on Newswire.

Cabinet Spokesman Nalinda Jayatissa clarified today that the government has explained its judicial reform programme to the Chief Prelates of the three Nikayas, following reports of a letter sent to the President opposing the constitutional amendment to extend the retirement age of judges.

Responding to a question at the post- Cabinet media briefing held today, Jayatissa said he and the Minister of Justice met the Chief Prelates of the Asgiriya, Malwathu and Ramanna Nikaya together, and later held discussions with the Chief Prelate of the Amarapura Nikaya.

He explained that the discussions went beyond the retirement age issue, covering the government’s broader judicial reforms aimed at reducing case backlogs, streamlining processes, and improving efficiency. 

Measures outlined included strengthening the Judiciary, Attorney General’s Department, Prisons, Government Analyst’s Department, and Judicial Services Commission; expediting recruitment and filling vacancies; increasing magistrates’ court hearings; establishing new appeal courts; digitalizing institutions; amending laws to address delays; and improving allowances and facilities for judges.

Jayatissa stressed that the extension of retirement age was not targeted at any single individual, but applied across the judiciary from magistrates to Supreme Court judges, covering around 400 judges whose retirement age would be extended by two years.

He added that the Chief Prelates listened to the government’s explanations, acknowledged the reforms, and expressed agreement if the measures would reduce delays and benefit the public. (Newswire)

The post Govt Confirms Receiving Mahanayake Theros’ Letter on Judges’ Retirement Age appeared first on Newswire.

The United National Party (UNP) Working Committee has declared that the government’s plan to submit a bill amending the Constitution and the Judiciary Act, with the stated aim of strengthening judicial independence and clearing case backlogs, is unacceptable.

In its resolution, the UNP stressed that while reducing the backlog of cases is a shared expectation across all parties, extending the tenure of judges is not a solution. 

Issuing a statement, the party recalled that the Ranil Wickremesinghe government had already sought a Governance Diagnostic Assessment from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) technical team, marking the first time such a report was prepared for an Asian country.

The IMF assessment highlighted the scale of the backlog as the most serious problem facing Sri Lanka’s judicial system. It noted that excessive delays harm the business community, with banks and private sector actors often avoiding reliance on courts to enforce loan agreements. The report cited the Colombo District Court, where nearly 45,000 recovery cases are pending, with each of the 10 judges handling around 2,000 cases at any given time.

Among its recommendations, the IMF report called for establishing a dedicated special court to address the backlog, streamlining administrative procedures, and strengthening support staff for judicial research. It observed that District Judges face workloads of about 2,000 cases annually, while Magistrates handle over 5,000 cases per year. In commercial courts, staff shortages were identified as a critical issue. The report further noted that enforcing a contract in Sri Lanka typically takes 6–7 years, with delays seen as the norm.

Importantly, the IMF evaluation did not recommend extending the tenure of judges. Instead, it emphasized reforms such as enhancing Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms and revising judicial procedures to encourage faster resolution.

The UNP argued that the government’s justification for extending judges’ tenure is therefore baseless. It urged that the IMF report be first discussed in Parliament, with input from the Attorney General, Judiciary, and Bar Association of Sri Lanka, before formulating a new methodology. 

The party underscored that the backlog, estimated at 1.1 million cases, must be reduced by at least 300,000 to 400,000 cases, and that vacancies in the Supreme Court and other courts should be filled without delay.

The resolution concluded that the proposed constitutional amendment should be suspended for now, with a new system prepared through broad consultation and then presented by the Ministry of Justice. The UNP pledged its full support for such a process. (Newswire)

The post UNP calls for suspension of plan to extend judges’ tenure appeared first on Newswire.

Cabinet Spokesman Nalinda Jayatissa today said he has not been made aware of any letter reportedly sent by the Chief Prelates of the three Nikayas to President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, opposing the constitutional amendment to extend the retirement age of judges.

Responding to a question at the post- Cabinet media briefing, the Minister explained that he, together with Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara, met the Chief Prelates of the Malwattu, Asgiri, and Ramanna Nikayas yesterday (03) to brief them on the 22nd Constitutional Amendment. 

He said the Government’s position and its aim of expediting long‑pending court cases to provide relief to the public were clearly conveyed.

Minister Jayatissa noted that the Chief Prelates did not express opposition during these discussions. 

He stressed that the amendment was not aimed at a single judge but would raise the retirement age of all judges, including those of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, and other courts under the Judicial Service Act.

Quoting the Malwatu Chief Prelate, the Minister said even senior monks had acknowledged the delays in cases, some lasting 12 to 20 years, and agreed that reforms to improve judicial efficiency were necessary.

“There is no opposition to judicial reforms to speed up cases, not even from the Chief Prelates,” he said.

The Minister added that he and Justice Minister Nanayakkara are scheduled to meet the Amarapura Nikaya Chief Prelate later today to continue discussions. (Newswire)

The post Cabinet spokesman unaware of reported Chief Prelates’ letter on judges’ retirement age amendment appeared first on Newswire.

Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara told Parliament today that he has not received any letter from the Chief Prelates opposing the proposed constitutional amendment to extend the retirement age of judges, despite claims made by the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL).

“I have not received any letter as claimed by the BASL, while the President has also not informed me yet if he has received such a letter. As such, I have no letter to table in Parliament,” the Minister said.

Nanayakkara explained that he, along with Minister Nalinda Jayatissa, had met the Chief Prelates regarding the matter. 

“At that time they had not received the correct information. After we provided the correct information, they informed us to conduct the necessary discussions and take the necessary actions in this regard,” he added.

The remarks came after Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa questioned in Parliament about BASL’s statement that the Chief Incumbent of the Malwatu Chapter had informed them that the Chief Prelates of the four Chapters were of the view that the amendment was not suitable, and that this position had been conveyed in writing to President Anura Kumara Dissanayake. (Newswire)

The post Justice Minister denies receiving letter from Chief Prelates on Judges’ retirement age appeared first on Newswire.

The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) stated that the Chief Incumbent of the Malwatu Chapter has informed them that the Chief Prelates of the four Chapters are of the view that the proposed constitutional amendment to extend the retirement age of judges is not suitable.

Addressing the media, BASL President Rajeev Amarasuriya said the Malwatu Chief Incumbent had conveyed that this position has been communicated in writing to President Anura Kumara Dissanayake.

Amarasuriya added that, in light of this stance, it would be difficult for the government to proceed with its plan to extend the retirement age of judges. (Newswire)

The post BASL says Chief Prelates convey opposition to judges’ retirement age amendment appeared first on Newswire.

The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) has provided further details on its opposition to the proposed constitutional amendment to extend the retirement age of judges of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal.

In a statement to the media, the BASL said, on July 29, its general membership unanimously passed a four‑page resolution, which urged the President, Government, and Members of Parliament “to uphold the Constitution, respect the institutional independence of the Judiciary, preserve public confidence in the administration of justice, and refrain from proceeding with constitutional amendments affecting the tenure of serving judges unless such proposals are demonstrably necessary, transparently developed, widely consulted upon, and fully consistent with Sri Lanka’s constitutional traditions and international obligations relating to judicial independence.”

Later that evening, a BASL delegation led by President Rajeev Amarasuriya, Deputy President Rienzie Arsakularatne PC, Secretary Nalin De Silva, Treasurer Pasindu Silva, and several former Presidents met with Justice and National Integration Minister Harshana Nanayakkara. This was the first opportunity for the Association to present its views directly to the Government, the BASL said. 

At the meeting, the BASL presented the resolution, outlined its considered position, and submitted its initial report, supported by the Justice Sector of Sri Lanka Assessment and Strategic Action Plan: Commercial, Contract and Investment Law Enforcement – 2023, prepared at the request of the Ministry of Justice.

The BASL statement said that Minister Nanayakkara undertook to arrange a meeting between the BASL and the President, enabling the Association to directly present its submissions, position, and findings. (Newswire)

The post BASL details meeting with Justice Minister on judicial retirement age amendment appeared first on Newswire.

The Cabinet of Ministers has approved a proposal to raise the constitutionally prescribed retirement age of judges, as part of a wider reform package aimed at making judicial proceedings more efficient and orderly.

According to the government, the move comes amid plans to expand the number of courts and enable the Court of Appeal to function regionally. 

By extending the service period of experienced judges, the government hopes to ensure that courts benefit from their expertise while addressing delays caused by heavy caseloads.

The proposal also identifies the need to increase the number of judges in both the Court of Appeal and the High Courts. 

Provincial High Courts with criminal jurisdiction and Civil Appellate High Courts have been struggling with large volumes of cases, prompting calls for additional appointments to speed up resolutions.

The reforms, presented by the Minister of Justice, instruct the Legal Draftsman to prepare draft legislation to amend the Constitution and the Judicature Act No. 2 of 1978. 

The government emphasized that all changes will be implemented while safeguarding the independence of the judiciary. (Newswire)

The post Cabinet moves to raise Judges’ retirement age in judicial reform appeared first on Newswire.

Leaders of main opposition political parties met this afternoon at the office of Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa to discuss the Government’s proposal to increase the retirement age of judges.

The meeting was convened by Premadasa to formulate a common opposition position on the proposal, which has drawn criticism from opposition parties over concerns about its potential impact on the independence of the judiciary.

Former President Ranil Wickremesinghe was among those who attended the discussions.

The Government’s proposal to increase the retirement age of judges has become a key issue in recent days, with opposition parties arguing that any changes affecting the judiciary should be approached with caution and following broad consultation. (Newswire)

The post Opposition parties meet over proposed increase in judges’ retirement age appeared first on Newswire.

Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa has warned that the government’s proposal to raise the retirement age of Supreme Court judges from 65 to 67 and Appeal Court judges from 63 to 65 is an attempt to establish a one‑party authoritarian command rule under the National People’s Power (NPP) government.

Speaking at a public lecture organized by the Samagi Lawyers’ Association at the Sri Lanka Foundation Institute yesterday (19), Premadasa said the move undermines judicial independence, erodes public trust in the courts, and destroys democracy. 

He questioned why the government is pursuing only this amendment without abolishing the executive presidency, noting that when asked in Parliament, ministers denied such a plan.

Premadasa drew on international precedents, from Magna Carta and medieval English common law to the U.S. Constitution of 1787, the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the 1985 Basic Principles on Judicial Independence, to argue that democracy is strengthened through separation of powers and checks and balances. 

He stressed that the more independent the judiciary, the stronger democracy becomes.

He accused the government of betraying the people’s mandate, saying President Anura Kumara Dissanayake and others had promised to protect democracy but are instead working to entrench authoritarian one‑party rule. 

He urged citizens to unite across party and class lines to defeat what he called anti‑democratic measures.

Premadasa also warned that such actions could trigger pressure from institutions like the IMF, create economic challenges, and affect concessions such as the EU’s GSP+. 

He said the public must be made aware of these consequences and that the wrong actions must be defeated by people’s strength.

“The era when judicial independence was undermined must not return,” Premadasa declared, adding that the gathering was aimed at safeguarding both democracy and the independence of the judiciary. (Newswire)

The post Judges’ retirement age amendment seen as path to one‑party rule – Sajith appeared first on Newswire.

The Samagi Lawyers’ Association, affiliated with the Opposition Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB), will host a public discussion tomorrow (19) highlighting concerns over attempts to undermine the independence of the judiciary.

The forum will take place at the Sri Lanka Foundation Institute, Colombo 07, beginning at 3:30 PM.

The awareness programme is aimed at drawing public attention to several issues: proposals to extend the retirement age of High Court judges, the prolonged failure to fill vacancies in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, and what organizers describe as threats posed by the executive to judicial independence. (Newswire)

The post Samagi Lawyers’ Association to hold public event against threats to judicial independence appeared first on Newswire.

The Judicial Service Association of Sri Lanka has formally opposed proposals to extend the constitutionally established retirement age of judges.

In a letter addressed to President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, the Association stated that the Sri Lanka Judicial Service Association does not agree with the extension of the constitutionally established retirement age of judges including Supreme Court judges. 

“At the special General Assembly meeting held on 11 July 2026, through a secret ballot, this decision was unanimously taken and approved,” the association said. 

The Association’s stance comes amid growing resistance within the judiciary to constitutional amendments altering retirement ages, a debate that has drawn attention to judicial independence and governance. (Newswire)

The post Judicial Service Association writes to President against retirement age extension appeared first on Newswire.

SLPP MP Namal Rajapaksa has written to Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa urging him to convene a meeting of all political parties that value democracy to discuss the Government’s proposed move to extend the retirement age of Supreme Court judges.

In his letter dated July 7, Rajapaksa claimed the Government is attempting to extend the tenure of superior court judges without any acceptable or justifiable reason, warning that such a move could undermine the rule of law and negatively impact Sri Lanka’s democratic process.

He noted that the proposal has already drawn criticism and opposition from the Bar Association of Sri Lanka, the Commonwealth Lawyers Association and LAWASIA.

Rajapaksa said that, given the concerns raised by these legal bodies, all political parties committed to upholding democracy and the rule of law should unite in opposing the proposal.

He requested Premadasa, in his capacity as Opposition Leader, to convene a discussion involving all democratic political parties on the issue.

Rajapaksa also suggested inviting leaders of all political parties that have been represented in Parliament, as well as other political leaders considered appropriate, to participate in the proposed meeting. (Newswire)

The post Namal writes to Sajith seeking united opposition on Judges’ Retirement Age Bill appeared first on Newswire.

The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) has voiced deep concern over reports that the NPP Government is considering a constitutional amendment to extend the retirement age of superior court judges, a move that would allow Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena to remain in office for two additional years.

In a statement, CPA said such a measure would undermine judicial independence and constitutional integrity, noting that security of tenure is a cornerstone of impartiality in Sri Lanka’s legal tradition. 

The organisation warned that tailoring constitutional provisions to benefit incumbents risks politicising the judiciary and eroding public confidence.

CPA also criticised the use of executive and parliamentary majority powers to advance narrow objectives, calling it a distortion of amendment procedures and inconsistent with Commonwealth principles on judicial independence.

Highlighting Sri Lanka’s historical reliance on the courts as guardians of the rule of law, CPA urged the government to desist from pursuing the amendment and called on Parliament, the legal community, civil society, and the public to oppose any move that threatens the integrity of the constitutional order.

“The preservation of judicial independence and constitutional government is not a matter of political convenience, but a foundational obligation owed to the people of Sri Lanka and to future generations, and we cannot allow it to be harmed by the ineptitude and ignorance, if not the arrogance and ill will, of those in power,” CPA added. 

Full statement: 

The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) is deeply concerned by recent reports concerning purported proposals by the NPP Government to amend the Constitution, which raise profound questions about the integrity of Sri Lanka’s constitutional order, including the independence of the judiciary and the proper use of constitutional amendment powers.

In a report by its News Editor (Sinhala version published on 10 June 2026, followed by an English version on 11 June), entitled “The Recurring Drama of Constitutional Amendments for Personal Gain,” the Anidda newspaper states:

“President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s government is reportedly planning to introduce a constitutional amendment to extend the retirement age of superior court judges. This amendment is expected to allow the current Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena to remain in office for another two years. If passed, it would become the 22nd Amendment to the 1978 Constitution. The proposal has already drawn strong opposition from lawyers concerned about judicial independence and constitutional traditions.”

CPA notes that the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) has already rightly decried this move in strong and unambiguous terms. We share and endorse these concerns.

A constitutional amendment that alters a core institutional feature of the judiciary, particularly one designed to affect tenure, is not a neutral or technical adjustment. Security of tenure is a central pillar of judicial independence in our common law tradition, originating in principles established in key cases such as the Case of Prohibitions del Roy (1607), Dr Bonham’s Case (1610), Case of Proclamations (1611), Bushell’s Case (1670), and Entick v Carrington (1765), and subsequently enshrined in statute and constitutional instruments, including in Sri Lanka since the Charter of Justice (1801). In numerous cases, including Attorney General v Silva (1953), Liyanage v The Queen (1967), Joseph Perera v Attorney General (1992), Premachandra v Jayawickrema (1994), Chandrasoma v Senathirajah (1997), and various special determinations on constitutional amendment bills, our courts have consistently reaffirmed the main principle of judicial independence and impartiality, and its several supplementary principles, such as security of tenure.       

These constitutional principles, which work not merely to restrain the dismissal of judges who displease the executive but also to extensions in office of judges who do the bidding of the executive, ensure that judges are insulated from political pressure and can decide cases impartially, without fear of reward or sanction. When the tenure of a sitting Chief Justice is extended through a constitutional amendment tailored to benefit specific individuals in office or their policy for the time being (in this case the incumbent President and Chief Justice), it inevitably gives rise to the perception – and risk – of executive influence over the judiciary. It suggests that continuance in office may depend on political favour rather than constitutional principle, thereby undermining public confidence in judicial impartiality.

Moreover, such an amendment would fundamentally alter the established understanding that constitutional provisions governing judicial tenure are general, prospective, and impersonal. Departing from this norm to enact a measure that benefits an incumbent office-holder transforms a constitutional mechanism into an instrument of personalisation. This damages not only the independence of the individual office but also the integrity of the institution as a whole.

CPA is also deeply concerned by the use of the executive presidency and its parliamentary majority to effect such a change. While the Constitution provides procedures for amendment, these procedures are not intended to be used as tools for advancing narrow or personalised objectives. Constitutional amendment powers are entrusted to the political branches for the purpose of responding to genuine institutional or societal needs, and must be exercised in good faith and in accordance with the spirit of constitutionalism. The use of these powers to secure the extension of tenure of a particular office-holder constitutes an illegitimate use of constitutional authority. It represents a distortion of the amendment process, undermining its normative legitimacy and eroding constitutional culture.

Such a measure would also be wholly inconsistent with Commonwealth principles on judicial independence, to which Sri Lanka, as a founding member of the modern Commonwealth in 1949, has repeatedly committed itself. Foundational Commonwealth instruments – including the Latimer House Principles (2003) – affirm that judicial appointments, tenure, and removal must be governed by transparent, principled processes that safeguard independence and avoid both actual and perceived political interference. The Latimer House Principles emphasise that security of tenure must be preserved and that any changes to judicial conditions of service must not be made in a way that compromises judicial independence or benefits particular individuals. These principles are widely affirmed in case law from across the Commonwealth and across time, including McCawley v The King (1920), Hinds v The Queen (1977), Valente v The Queen (1985), Re The Remuneration of Judges (1997), and Mackin v New Brunswick (2002).

The reported proposal would also damage the institutional fabric of the Supreme Court, the oldest continuously functioning branch of the Sri Lankan state, whose origins date back to the aforementioned Charter of Justice (1801), and continued without interruption in subsequent imperial as well as post-colonial constitutional instruments. Over more than two centuries, as a result, the Sri Lankan people have become accustomed to seeing the courts as their principal institutional guardian of the rule of law and constitutional government. Measures that introduce uncertainty, politicisation, or personalised considerations into the tenure of its leadership risk undermining its authority, legitimacy, and historical continuity.

Both the process and the substance of the reported amendment are deeply violative of the republican values on which the 1978 Constitution is based. The republican principle underpinning our constitutional order requires public power to be exercised in trust for the common good of the people of Sri Lanka, in accordance with law, and without arbitrariness or personalisation. It demands institutional integrity, the separation of powers in terms established by Article 3 and 4, and checks against the concentration or abuse of authority. 

Executive-driven manipulation of constitutional amendment procedures, particularly for the purpose of influencing the tenure of the head of the judiciary, is fundamentally inconsistent with these values. Equally, any interference – direct or indirect – with judicial independence strikes at the heart of the republican ideal of a government of laws, not of persons.

Indeed, the effects of a constitutional amendment in terms currently contemplated could have wider and unintended ramifications beyond the judiciary. In a recent essay for the Jaffna Monitor, Professor G.L. Peiris has argued that the stability and independence of the public service as well as the principle of equality and non-discrimination may be adversely affected by this proposed change.  

It was precisely because Sri Lankans were fed up with the unconstitutional and self-aggrandising behaviour of past Presidents and Governments that Anura Kumara Dissanayake and the NPP were elected to implement the Aragalaya’s call for “system change” and restore good governance in 2024. To witness this Government also – so soon and so effortlessly – going down the path-dependent patterns of previous governments is therefore a particularly appalling example of hypocrisy.

In the light of these extremely serious concerns, CPA calls upon the Government to immediately desist from pursuing any constitutional amendment aimed at extending the term of office of the incumbent Chief Justice. We urge the Government to reaffirm its commitment to judicial independence and impartiality, constitutional propriety, and the rule of law. We also call upon all Members of Parliament, the legal community, civil society, the media, and the public at large to remain vigilant and to oppose any measures that threaten the integrity of Sri Lanka’s constitutional order. The preservation of judicial independence and constitutional government is not a matter of political convenience, but a foundational obligation owed to the people of Sri Lanka and to future generations, and we cannot allow it to be harmed by the ineptitude and ignorance, if not the arrogance and ill will, of those in power. (Newswire)

The post CPA warns against reported move to extend judges’ retirement age appeared first on Newswire.

A group of opposition Members of Parliament has written to the Speaker of Parliament, who also serves as Chairperson of the Constitutional Council, raising concern over prolonged vacancies in Sri Lanka’s higher judiciary.

In their letter, the MPs draw attention to four unfilled vacancies in the Supreme Court and four in the Court of Appeal, stating that the positions have remained vacant for an extended period. They argue that the delay in filling these posts appears inconsistent with Article 107(1) of the Constitution, which provides for the appointment of judges of the superior courts by the President, subject to the approval of the Constitutional Council.

The MPs have requested the Constitutional Council to ascertain whether the Chief Justice has formally notified either the Council or the President regarding the existence of these vacancies. If such notification has not been made, they urge that the reasons for the omission be examined.

The letter states that the continued existence of vacancies in the superior courts may discourage eligible senior judges from expecting timely consideration for promotion and could create uncertainty regarding judicial career progression. It also raises concerns about equal protection under the law, as guaranteed by the Constitution, in the context of delayed appointments.

Beyond individual implications, the MPs warn that the vacancies are affecting the efficient administration of justice, increasing the workload on serving judges, and potentially undermining public confidence in the judicial system. They further reference Article 4(c) of the Constitution, which places responsibility on the state to ensure the effective exercise of judicial power through properly constituted courts. 

In their appeal, the opposition MPs have requested the Speaker, in his dual capacity, to bring the matter before the Constitutional Council and the President for urgent consideration. They also call for the issue to be highlighted in Parliament as a constitutional concern requiring prompt action. (Newswire)

The post Opposition MPs write to Speaker over prolonged judicial vacancies in top courts appeared first on Newswire.

The Commonwealth Lawyers Association (CLA) has voiced concern over Sri Lanka’s reported move to extend the retirement age of judges of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, warning that such a constitutional amendment could undermine judicial independence and public confidence.

In a statement issued yesterday (11), the CLA noted the Bar Association of Sri Lanka’s (BASL) letter to President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, which described the proposal as a “blatant attempt to interfere with the judiciary.” 

The CLA echoed this position, stressing that constitutional amendments should not be made in a piecemeal or ad hoc manner, and must be preceded by adequate public and stakeholder consultation.

Citing the Latimer House Principles and its own Goa Declaration 2023, the CLA underscored that an independent, impartial, and competent judiciary is essential to upholding the rule of law.

It warned that any steps diminishing public confidence in the judiciary would be “antithetical to the rule of law.”

The association further called on Sri Lankan authorities to refrain from proceeding with the proposed constitutional amendment, resist piecemeal changes to the Constitution, ensure due process through consultation and stakeholder engagement, and safeguard judicial independence and uphold the rule of law.

The CLA, an international non‑profit organisation promoting the rule of law across the Commonwealth, emphasised that governments must respect judicial independence under domestic laws, regulations, and policies. (Newswire)

The post Commonwealth Lawyers Association cautions Sri Lanka over judicial retirement age extension appeared first on Newswire.

Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa has requested a clarification from the Government regarding the proposal to raise the retirement age of judges in the higher courts, including the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, warning that the issue carries national importance and directly affects judicial independence and public trust.

Speaking in Parliament today (11) under Standing Order 27(2), Premadasa said the Government must present any official requirement assessments, policy reports or data‑based studies that justify such a move. 

He questioned how the Government intends to rationalize the need for extending retirement ages further, given that the 20th Constitutional Amendment has already increased the number of judges in the higher courts.

Premadasa noted that the Bar Association of Sri Lanka has already raised concerns, stressing that extending service periods without a proper plan could undermine the dignity of judges and erode public confidence in judicial independence. 

He urged the Ministry of Justice to present its official stance and clarify whether formal consultations had been held with the Judicial Service Commission and other professional stakeholders.

Highlighting that four Supreme Court and four Court of Appeal judge posts remain vacant, Premadasa asked why the Government prioritizes raising retirement ages instead of filling vacancies, especially at a time when case delays, backlogs and shortages have created serious crises in the judicial system.

He warned that such a proposal could set a dangerous precedent, allowing future governments to alter the judiciary’s structure to suit political needs. He called on the Government to present concrete measures to dispel public distrust and safeguard judicial independence.

Premadasa further pointed out that many qualified judges have already retired due to prolonged vacancies, despite their distinguished service. 

He stressed that good governance requires protecting judicial independence and that the Government must explain why it has failed to act on filling vacancies. (Newswire)

The post Sajith questions basis for increasing judges’ retirement age without filling vacancies appeared first on Newswire.

Minister of Justice Harsha Nanayakkara told Parliament today (11) that official Cabinet approval has not been obtained to extend the retirement age of judges in the judicial system, including the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

Responding to several questions raised by Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa under Standing Order 27(2), the Minister said that apart from judges, other professionals too have requested an increase in the retirement age.

He noted that the government is considering these requests reasonably, pointing out that while some are fair, others are political.

However, Nanayakkara stressed that no official decision has yet been taken on the matter. (Newswire)

The post No Cabinet decision yet on raising judges’ retirement age – Justice Minister appeared first on Newswire.