The debate over the Sri Lankan Government’s proposed constitutional amendment to extend the retirement age of judges — from 65 to 67 in the Supreme Court (SC), 63 to 65 in the Court of Appeal (CA), and by two years in the lower courts — has reached a defining moment. In response, the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL), led by President, attorney Rajeev Amarasuriya, along with several news commentators, have raised strong objections. They frame the proposal as a hasty political move that threatens the independence of the courts.
However, this view overlooks the severe operational realities facing the judicial system. The Government’s proposal is both justified and urgently necessary for the average citizen seeking timely justice.
Before addressing the specific objections raised by the BASL leadership, it is important to examine why this structural reform directly serves the public interest.
Why the Govt’s proposal is justified?
Support for extending judicial retirement ages rests on three compelling realities: the massive court delay facing ordinary citizens, international legal and demographic standards, and practical governance.
Rescuing citizens from a 1.1 million case backlog
Sri Lanka’s court system is currently clogged with over 1.1 million pending cases. Behind this staggering number are real human lives: families fighting over land titles for three generations, accident victims waiting a decade for compensation, and small business owners ruined by delayed commercial disputes.
Forcing experienced appellate judges to retire at 63 or 65 deprives the country of its most skilled legal minds at the exact moment when their speed and experience are needed the most. A senior judge who has spent decades on the bench can review complex files and deliver written judgments far faster than a newly appointed judge. Keeping these seasoned jurists for just two more years keeps the machinery of justice moving and helps clear the mountain of pending files.
Aligning with demographic realities and global standards
The determination of the retirement age in any country — or within a specialised profession like the judiciary — depends on several interrelated demographic, economic, and social factors. Among the most critical are life expectancy, the population age structure, labour force participation, workforce requirements, and the long-term financial sustainability of pension systems.
An immediate solution that costs taxpayers nothing
Building new courtrooms, digitising court registries, and training hundreds of new legal staff are vital steps, but, they take years to implement and require billions of Rupees from the national Budget. In contrast, extending the retirement age of existing judges provides an immediate expansion of the judicial capacity without adding extra overhead costs to the taxpayer.
Key terminology: Understanding the legal principles
To better navigate the debate surrounding this constitutional amendment, it is helpful to understand five key legal and constitutional concepts.
Judicial independence
The constitutional principle that judges must be completely free to decide cases fairly based on the law, without pressure, fear, or influence from politicians, the Executive branch, or private interests.
The doctrine of necessity
A long-standing legal principle that allows an administrative or judicial body to act — even if a potential technical conflict or procedural objection exists — when failing to act would paralyse the legal system or leave the public without a functioning institution.
Nemo Judex in Causa Sua
A fundamental rule of natural justice meaning that "no one should be a judge in their own cause." Critics invoke this to argue that judges should not hear challenges to a law that affects their own terms, though the doctrine of necessity overrides it when the entire institution is affected.
Case backlog
The total volume of pending legal disputes filed in courts that have not yet reached a final judgement, creating severe delays for litigants.
Universal vs. Discretionary extension
A universal extension applies automatically to all judges by law, protecting independence. A discretionary extension allows politicians to selectively choose individual judges to keep, which risks political favouritism.
Addressing the objections raised by the BASL
While the legal fraternity’s desire to protect the Judiciary is understandable, the arguments raised against this amendment do not stand up to careful scrutiny when examined in plain terms.
Objection One: "This is a political favour to current judges."
The argument
The BASL leadership and media columnists suggest that extending the terms of incumbent judges gives the appearance that the Government is offering a personal benefit or "reward" to specific judges, which could compromise their independence.
The response
When a law applies to everyone neutrally without political discretion, it removes the power of politicians to favour individual judges. A uniform, equal rule protects judicial independence — it does not weaken it.
Objection Two: "The extension should be deferred until after the current CJ retires."
The argument
Opponents argue that sitting SC Judges face an ethical conflict of interest when ruling on this amendment, and suggest that the law should be deferred until after the incumbent CJ reaches the current retirement age.
The response
Deferring the amendment specifically to exclude the current CJ is the exact opposite of fairness. Drafting or timing a constitutional amendment to target or exclude a specific individual violates the fundamental principle that laws must be general, neutral, and objective. Singling out a particular CJ through constitutional timing would introduce the very political discrimination that critics claim to oppose.
Regarding the alleged conflict of interest, constitutional law across the world resolves this through the time-tested doctrine of necessity. If a law affects the entire judicial branch as an institution, judges cannot step down and leave the country without a working SC. If judges were barred from ruling on anything that affects their terms of office, courts could never rule on judicial salaries, pensions, or court administration rules.
Creating a "two-tier" bench where some judges retire at 65 and others on the same panel retire at 67 would cause severe administrative confusion and damage collegiality on the bench. Universal, immediate application remains the only fair approach.
Objection Three: "The Govt. should fill vacancies instead of extending retirement."
The argument
The BASL argues that there is no data showing a need for longer tenure, and that the real solution is simply appointing new judges to fill vacant seats.
The response
This is a false choice. The Government should — and must — fill vacancies and extend retirement ages at the same time.
Objection Four: "The amendment is rushed and lacks broad consultation."
The argument
Critics argue that the proposal is an "ad-hoc" change being pushed through without multi-year public debates or a complete re-writing of the Constitution.
The response
Waiting for a total constitutional overhaul while millions of court files collect dust is a luxury that the judicial system cannot afford. When a specific administrative bottleneck is crippling a public service, targeted constitutional amendments are a sensible, recognised tool of good governance.
Moreover, altering the Constitution is not something that an Executive can do secretly or overnight. It requires a two-thirds supermajority in Parliament. This guarantees that the proposal will be debated publicly in Parliament, reported in the press, and voted on by the elected representatives of the people.
Objection Five: "This does not fix building infrastructure or paper-based systems."
The argument
The BASL emphasises that extending retirement ages does not fix the real causes of court delay — such as outdated courtroom buildings, manual filing systems, and old procedural rules.
The response
No one claims that extending judicial tenure will fix every problem in the legal system on its own. It is a human capital strategy, not a building project.
Courtroom technology, electronic filing systems, and physical buildings take years to construct and roll out nationwide. Extending judicial tenure acts as an immediate bridge. It keeps experienced hands on the wheel today while long-term infrastructural improvements are developed for tomorrow. Upgrading courtrooms without keeping experienced judges to run them makes very little sense.
Conclusion: Putting the public first
The resistance from the BASL comes from a desire to guard against Executive overreach. However, rejecting a necessary, modernising reform out of general suspicion ultimately hurts the Sri Lankan public who suffer daily under court delays.
Extending the retirement age of judges is a fair, transparent, and non-discriminatory step. It reflects modern demographic realities, aligns Sri Lanka with international Commonwealth standards, retains valuable experience, and gives the court system immediate relief.
Rather than opposing this amendment, the legal community should work together with the public to support a measure that brings stability, efficiency, and timely justice to all citizens.
Fernando is a Barrister and Solicitor based in Canad
Goonasekera is a Consultant Anaesthetist, academic and researcher based in London
------------------------
The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication