ECONOMYNEXT – The retirement age of judges of the Courtroom of Attraction and Supreme Courtroom shouldn’t be modified arbitrarily, the Bar Affiliation of Sri Lanka has mentioned, amidst studies that the federal government is contemplating amending the nation’s Structure to extend judges’ age of retirement.
“Extending the retirement age of the sitting Judges of those Courts at this level of time is prone to be seen by the general public as a blatant try to intrude with the judiciary,” BASL mentioned in a letter to President Anura Kumara Dissanayake.
Reviews have been circulating that Dissanayake was seeking to lengthen the present chief justice’s time period.
Altering the retirement age of judges of the apex courts within the island nation requires a Constitutional modification, the authorized physique identified, expressing “critical concern relating to any such proposed modification, which is neither within the pursuits of the judiciary and nor of the individuals.”
“If the Authorities goes forward with such a transfer it’s going to set a harmful precedent for future Governments too to introduce advert hoc amendments to the Structure in respect of the capabilities of the judiciary,” BASL mentioned.
The complete assertion is reproduced under:
ALLEGED MOVE TO INCREASE THE RETIREMENT AGE OF THE JUDICIARY INCLUDING THE COURT OF APPEAL AND THE SUPREME COURT
The Bar Affiliation of Sri Lanka (hereinafter known as “BASL”) notes with grave concern studies within the public area that the Authorities is contemplating the introduction of an modification to the Structure to extend the age of retirement of Judges of the Courtroom of Attraction and the Supreme Courtroom.
It’s the thought-about view of the BASL that the age of retirement of the judges of the Courtroom of Attraction and the Supreme Courtroom which has stood at 63 years and 65 years respectively from the promulgation of the 1978 Structure, shouldn’t be modified arbitrarily and that such a change is neither crucial nor fascinating.
To take action will consequence within the lack of public confidence within the integrity of the authorized system and of the Authorities’s dedication to protect and shield the rule of regulation and the independence of the judiciary. Members of the general public are prone to query the motives of the Authorities in bringing in a Constitutional modification solely for this goal.
Your Excellency is little doubt conscious that the cadre of the Judges of the Courtroom of Attraction was elevated from 12 to twenty Judges (together with the President of the Courtroom of Attraction) and that of the Supreme Courtroom from 11 to 17 Judges (together with the Chief Justice) by the twentieth modification to the structure licensed on twenty ninth of October 2020. With such enhancement, workwise, there can’t be an actual requirement to increase the retirement ages of those judges.
Your Excellency is conscious that altering the retirement age of judges of the apex courts must be completed by way of a Constitutional modification. For a few years Sri Lanka’s Structure has been topic to advert hoc amendments, generally in an effort to cater to the political wants of the federal government in energy and infrequently opposite to the pursuits of the rule of regulation, the independence of the judiciary and the judiciary.
Extending the retirement age of the sitting Judges of those Courts at this level of time is prone to be seen by the general public as a blatant try to intrude with the judiciary. We imagine that to go forward with such an advert hoc transfer will even be an affront to the Honourable Judges of these courts.
If the Authorities goes forward with such a transfer it’s going to set a harmful precedent for future Governments too to introduce advert hoc amendments to the Structure in respect of the capabilities of the judiciary.
The independence of the Judiciary and the general public confidence reposed in it, are indispensable pillars of the Rule of Legislation and the democratic framework of our Republic. In that regard, it’s of paramount significance that the Judiciary should not solely stay impartial in actual fact, however should even be seen by the general public to be wholly impartial, neutral, and free from even the slightest notion of affect, favour, lodging, or impropriety.
The Bar Affiliation of Sri Lanka is subsequently constrained, within the discharge of its responsibility to uphold and safeguard the Rule of Legislation and-the independence of the Judiciary, to respectfully specific its critical concern relating to any such proposed modification, which is neither within the pursuits of the judiciary and nor of the individuals.
Within the circumstances, the BASL respectfully urges Your Excellency to not proceed with any proposed constitutional modification in search of to extend the retirement age of the members of the Judiciary together with Judges of the Courtroom of Attraction and the Supreme Courtroom.
We stay assured that Your Excellency will give due consideration to the significance of preserving and defending the independence, integrity, dignity, and public confidence within the Judiciary, which is crucial to the upkeep of the Rule of Legislation and democratic governance in Sri Lanka. (Colombo/Jun3/2026)
Proceed Studying
