The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) has mounted an aggressive campaign against the proposed Constitutional Amendment to extend judicial retirement ages, framing the reform as an existential threat to the rule of law. Yet, in an expansive, one-hour-and-24-minute broadcast interview defending this stance, the leadership of the BASL committed a fatal omission: not once was it explained how or why extending a judge’s statutory tenure actually threatens judicial independence.

Instead of delivering a structural critique, the Bar’s leadership offered empty warnings of a vague Constitutional crisis, relying heavily on a distraction: the fact that the incumbent Chief Justice (Preethi Padman Surasena), scheduled to retire in December of this year (2026), would be the initial beneficiary of the change. But, the timing of a statutory Amendment changes nothing. Whenever a retirement limit is extended across an entire institution, someone must inevitably be the first person to benefit. That is a basic logical truth, not a Constitutional violation.

If the BASL is not opposed to the underlying concept of modernising the judicial tenure, crying foul over the immediate beneficiary is a red herring. Strip away this manufactured outrage, and the true motive comes into sharp focus: the BASL views any attempt to stabilise the judicial tenure not as a threat to the Bench, but as a direct assault on the Bar's abusive, long-standing iron grip over Sri Lanka's judicial apparatus.

The manufactured crisis versus Commonwealth reality

In the 84-minute interview, the Bar’s leadership built a classic straw man argument — one completely unbacked by international precedent, empirical data, or basic policy rationale. Modernising retirement ages is not an attack on the Bench; it is a standard, evidence-based tool for managing the institutional capacity used across mature democracies.

The UK

Facing severe trial backlogs and a shortage of experienced jurists, the United Kingdom (UK) Parliament passed the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Act of 2022, raising the mandatory judicial retirement age from 70 back to 75. Retaining proven senior talent was recognised as a practical necessity, not an erosion of independence.

Canada

Under the Constitution Act of 1867, federally appointed judges serve until age 75. Canada pairs this cap with a robust supernumerary framework under the Judges Act, enabling senior judges to maintain a reduced trial docket while making room for full-time appointments.

In neither jurisdiction does extending a judge's statutory tenure make them subservient to the Executive. Judges do not lose their impartiality simply because the law permits them to serve their country longer. To suggest otherwise — while failing to articulate a single mechanism of compromise across an hour-and-24 minutes of airtime — is not legal analysis; it is political theatre.

Breaking the monopoly

Why is the BASL fighting a routine policy reform that aligns Sri Lanka with established Commonwealth norms?

The answer lies in power and leverage. Rapid, mandatory turnover at early retirement caps creates a revolving door on the Bench. Constant vacancies foster an ecosystem of informal influence, judicial jockeying, and administrative leverage where senior members of the Bar can exercise outsized control over the Bench's trajectory.

Extending the tenure stabilises the Judiciary, preserves vital institutional memory, insulates sitting jurists from post-retirement anxieties, and disrupts this cycle of influence. By weaponising the concept of "judicial independence" to fight a standard capacity-building measure — and hiding behind the distraction of who retires first — the BASL is using a hollow shield to protect its entrenched institutional monopoly.

Policy reform must be built on evidence, not manufactured panic. When an 84-minute interview cannot produce a single coherent sentence on how extended service harms the Judiciary, the conclusion is inescapable: the debate is not about protecting the Bench — it is about preserving control.

The writer is a Canada-based barrister and solicitor

-------------------

The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication