Parliament on Friday (25) passed the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution by 95 votes, extending the retirement age of superior court judges amid protests by the main Opposition, which claimed the measure undermined judicial independence.
The bill received 158 votes in favour and 63 votes against.
The ruling National People’s Power (NPP) voted in favour of the bill while the Opposition, including the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB), Ilankai Tamil Arasu Katchi (ITAK), Sarvajana Balaya, National Democratic Front (NDF), and Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) voted against.
The amendment raises the mandatory retirement age of Supreme Court judges from 65 to 67 years and of Court of Appeal judges from 63 to 65 years. The Judicature (Amendment) Bill, debated alongside it, raises the retirement age of lower court judges to 62 years, increases the number of Court of Appeal judges by five, and increases the number of High Court judges from 110 to 120, measures the Government has said are intended to alleviate severe case backlogs.
The vote took place at 7 p.m. following a two-day debate, which began on Thursday (24) when Minister of Justice and National Integration Harshana Nanayakkara presented the bills for their second reading.
Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne announced in Parliament on Tuesday (22) the Supreme Court’s determination that the amendment could be passed by a special two-thirds majority in Parliament without requiring a public referendum.
The bill sparked heavy criticism from several parties and a total of 67 petitions, including one by the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL), had been filed challenging its constitutionality.
Presenting the bills on Thursday (24), Minister Nanayakkara said the amendments were not intended “to establish authoritarianism or to suppress anyone,” but “to hear cases expeditiously and ensure justice and fairness for the people”.
He said Sri Lanka had approximately 19 judges per million people, significantly fewer than the figures he cited for several other countries. He said the retirement age extension was intended to retain experienced judicial officers while broader reforms were implemented. He also emphasised that it alone would not resolve delays but formed part of a comprehensive judicial reform programme.
Outlining measures already undertaken, the Minister said the Government had increased the number of courtrooms by 29 and was recruiting approximately 1,700 court employees. Electronic filing has been introduced in the superior courts and is gradually being extended to lower courts, while voice-to-text technology has been planned for approximately 350 courts.
He said a limited number of officers at the Attorney General’s Department were handling 15,000–20,000 cases, noting that recruitment was underway there and at the Government Analyst’s Department. He added that the Government was examining the possibility of holding Court of Appeal sittings outside Colombo.
On Thursday, the SJB staged a protest at the Polduwa Junction in Battaramulla under the theme ‘No to 22, which destroys democracy’. Protesters wore black armbands and Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa joined them along with several other politicians. On Friday, SJB members arrived in Parliament dressed in black.
Addressing the House on Friday, Premadasa said that however the Government presented it, the measure was “inherently anti-democratic”. Citing Montesquieu’s principle of the separation of powers, he argued that it would “shatter judicial independence” and turn the Judiciary into “a tool and puppet of the Executive”.
Premadasa said a three-judge Supreme Court bench had previously affirmed that altering the retirement age of judges required a referendum. Rejecting Government claims that critics of the amendment were aligned with his party, he pointed to the BASL, Colombo High Court Lawyers’ Association, Judicial Service Association, Commonwealth Lawyers Association, French National Bar Council, and the UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, asking whether all of them were SJB members.
He warned that the Government risked establishing a one-party state and said governance should not serve “the partisan motives of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP)”.
Speaking after Premadasa, Leader of the House Bimal Rathnayake said the amendment was designed to modernise the judicial framework and that the Government held a clear public mandate. “We do not need the 22nd Amendment at all to maintain our Government power,” he said.
Rathnayake rejected Opposition claims that the retirement age extension amounted to a legislative bribe, stating that it originated from broader State reform policies rather than requests from individual judges. He said the Government had complete confidence in all sitting judges and had not handpicked anyone.
Contrasting the amendment with past constitutional changes used to extend presidential terms or dismiss senior judges, he said true judicial independence required freedom from commercial interests, media campaigns, and political pressure groups. He cautioned the Opposition against spreading what he called false narratives to the UN and religious leaders.