The Supreme Court (SC) yesterday (2) continued its hearing of 67 petitions challenging and supporting the constitutionality of the proposed 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, following nearly 12 hours of proceedings over two days.
A five-member bench comprising Chief Justice (CJ) Preethi Padman Surasena and Justices Achala Wengappuli, Arjuna Obeyesekere, Sampath B Abayakoon and K Gihan H Kulatunga heard the petitions.
The Court directed all parties to file their written submissions by 3 p.m. today (3), following which its confidential Determination on the constitutionality of the Bill will be communicated to the Speaker of Parliament.
Yesterday’s proceedings included submissions by counsel representing the petitioners, intervening petitioners and the Attorney General (AG), who had been notified by Court to make submissions on the petitions.
Solicitor General Viraj Dayaratne PC, appearing for the AG, told the Court that the Government had presented the 22nd Amendment Bill and the Judicature (Amendment) Bill with the objective of expanding and streamlining the country’s judicial system.
The 22nd Amendment Bill, presented to Parliament for its first reading on 18 August by Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara, proposes increasing the retirement age of Supreme Court Judges from 65 to 67 and that of Court of Appeal Judges from 63 to 65.
The proposed changes have drawn strong opposition from sections of the legal community, with petitioners arguing that extending the retirement age could undermine judicial independence and affect the sovereignty of the people. Some petitioners have maintained that the Bill requires not only a two-thirds majority in Parliament but also approval at a referendum.
President’s Counsel (PC) M A Sumanthiran, appearing for the Bar Association, had on Tuesday requested that the petitions be heard before a full bench of the SC, arguing that provisions affecting the tenure and retirement age of Judges created a potential conflict of interest. However, the five-member bench rejected the request and continued with the hearing.
Sumanthiran subsequently argued that the proposed Amendment could violate Article 3 of the Constitution relating to the sovereignty of the people. Referring to a 2022 SC Determination on the Inland Revenue Bill, he said extending the retirement age of Judges required a referendum.
M U M Ali Sabry PC, appearing for former Minister and jurist Prof G L Peiris, argued that judicial independence could be affected not only by reducing the retirement age of Judges but also by increasing it.
Srinath Perera PC, appearing for another group of petitioners, also questioned whether SC Judges could hear a case concerning their own retirement ages, citing the principle against judges adjudicating matters in which they have a personal interest.
A total of 67 petitions have been filed in relation to the 22nd Amendment, including petitions supporting the proposed legislation.
The Bill was gazetted on 7 August, before being presented to Parliament on 18 August. The SC’s Determination will determine whether the Government can proceed with the Bill through Parliament alone or whether a referendum will also be required.
Meanwhile, five petitions have been filed challenging the Judicature (Amendment) Bill currently before Parliament.