Concerning the Government’s Proposal on the Retirement Age of Court of Appeal and Supreme Court Judges
A serious discussion has arisen in society regarding the government’s proposal concerning the retirement age of judges of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. It is possible to examine this matter without any personal attacks or bias and to determine whether such a decision is truly necessary.
We emphasize that the responsibility and duty of providing a clear explanation on this issue rests with the President and the Minister of Justice.
The retirement age of Superior Court judges is currently protected by the Constitution. Any alteration or amendment can only be made through a constitutional amendment, which requires due constitutional procedures and the involvement of Parliament.
The current government’s policy document clearly states on page 194 that a new Constitution would be drafted, presented to the people, and enacted following a public consultation process. It is noteworthy that many of the individuals who previously opposed constitutional amendments are now among the principal members and representatives of the current administration.
The criticisms, objections, and public awareness campaigns carried out by those presently in power demonstrate that their past statements and actions are inconsistent with the present course they are pursuing.
This proposal effectively seeks to alter the Constitution indirectly. Such a move would weaken democracy, the rule of law, and the independence of the judiciary, thereby undermining the legal system.
What is the Government Seeking to Achieve Through This Amendment?
There are reasonable questions being raised within society:
- Is the intention to prevent the succession of currently serving judges who may be due for elevation?
- Or is it aimed at exerting influence over the judiciary to satisfy the interests of a particular individual or group?
These are legitimate concerns that deserve public discussion.
Furthermore, extending the retirement age of judges who are already serving and close to retirement by an additional two years appears unfair. Such a move could amount to a violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 12 of the Constitution, which affirms equality before the law and equal protection of the law for all citizens.
Instead of introducing piecemeal constitutional amendments merely to secure political objectives until a comprehensive constitutional reform is undertaken, we expect the government to safeguard the rule of law, judicial independence, and the dignity of the judiciary.
At this critical moment, all lawyers, civil society organizations, and citizens who value democratic governance and constitutional principles must remain vigilant.
We agree with the contents of the letter sent by the Bar Association of Sri Lanka to the President on this matter. We further stress that the President and the government should immediately withdraw this proposal and refrain from challenging the people’s confidence in the independence of the judiciary.
