President of the Commonwealth Lawyers’ Association, Steven Thiru, has raised concerns over the decision not to appoint a larger or full bench to hear petitions challenging the Government’s proposed 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, questioning whether the approach could affect public confidence in judicial independence.

Thiru, who attended Wednesday’s (2) Supreme Court proceedings as an observer, said he had spoken to several members of the legal profession about concerns surrounding the case.

One of the main concerns raised by members of the Bar, he said, was why a larger bench had not been appointed given the constitutional significance of the proposed Amendment and its implications for judicial independence.

“Cases concerning important constitutional and judicial matters are usually heard by larger benches,” Thiru said, adding that he had been informed that a request for a larger bench had been rejected.

He questioned the reasons for not empanelling a larger or full bench, describing the matter as a concern in relation to the independence of the Judiciary.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday concluded its two-day hearing of 67 petitions challenging the constitutionality of the 22nd Amendment Bill, which seeks to extend by two years the retirement age of Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judges.

A five-member bench headed by Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena heard submissions from lawyers representing the petitioners, parties supporting the Bill and the Attorney General.

Following the hearing, the Court said its confidential determination on the constitutionality of the Bill would be communicated to the Speaker of Parliament.

The parties were also directed to file their written submissions by 3 p.m. yesterday (3).

The Government presented the Bill to Parliament on 18 August, following which members of the public were given an opportunity to challenge its constitutionality before the Supreme Court.