A Government proposal to amend the Constitution to extend the retirement age of Supreme Court (SC) and Court of Appeal (CA) Judges has ignited one of the most contentious Constitutional debates since the NPP administration assumed office, with the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) and several legal organisations warning that the move could undermine judicial independence and public confidence in the courts.
At present, Article 107(5) of the Constitution fixes the retirement age of SC Judges at 65 years and CA Judges at 63. Any alteration would require a Constitutional Amendment approved by Parliament.
The controversy has intensified amid reports that the Amendment would enable several serving Judges, including senior members of the Judiciary, to remain in office for an additional two years critics argue that while Parliament possesses the Constitutional authority to amend retirement ages, changing the tenure of sitting Judges creates the perception that the Executive is attempting to influence the composition of the country's Highest Courts.
The plan to extend the retirement age came at a time when the Opposition blasts the Government for deliberately delaying the appointments for eight vacancies for senior Judges in the SC and the CA. They argue this to be tantamount to a direct interference in the Judiciary.
The BASL has formally appealed to President Anura Kumara Dissanayake not to proceed with the proposal. The Association notes that the number of Judges in both the SC and the CA was substantially increased through earlier Constitutional Amendments, reducing any operational necessity for extending the judicial tenure. Instead, it argues, existing vacancies should be filled through the established Constitutional appointment process rather than by prolonging the service of incumbent Judges. The BASL's position has received support from several legal organisations, including the Commonwealth Lawyers Association, which has cautioned against piecemeal Constitutional Amendments affecting the Judiciary. The international body stressed that judicial independence forms a cornerstone of democratic governance and that Constitutional reforms should follow broad public consultation rather than ad hoc political decisions.
Several lawyers' groups have gone further, arguing that extending the tenure of sitting Judges, amounts to altering the composition of the Superior Courts while cases involving the Government may still be pending before them. Such measures, they contend, risk creating a perception that the judicial office is being linked to Executive favour rather than Constitutional certainty.
The Government has so far maintained that no final Cabinet of Ministers decision has been taken. Justice Minister, attorney Harshana Nanayakkara recently informed Parliament that the Cabinet has not formally approved any proposal to increase the retirement age, although public debate has continued following reports that such an Amendment is under consideration.
Supporters of the proposal argue that retaining experienced Judges could help reduce delays in hearing appeals and preserve institutional continuity at a time when the Superior Courts face numerous vacancies. Opponents counter that any reform affecting the judicial tenure should apply only to future appointments rather than incumbent Judges. They argue that changing the conditions of service after appointment may compromise the Constitutional principle that Judges remain insulated from political influence throughout their tenure.
The debate has evolved beyond a simple question of retirement age into a broader discussion on Constitutional governance. Legal scholars note that the Constitution deliberately fixed retirement ages to provide certainty and prevent Governments from manipulating the judicial tenure according to political convenience. Any departure from that principle, they warn, could establish a precedent for future administrations to reshape the higher Judiciary through Constitutional Amendments whenever expedient.
As Parliament prepares to consider possible Constitutional reforms, the Government's handling of this proposal is likely to become a significant test of its commitment to judicial independence, Constitutional propriety and the rule of law.
Govt shy of elections: lack of political desire delays PC Polls
Nearly eight years after Sri Lanka's Provincial Councils (PCs) ceased functioning under elected representatives, growing criticism is being directed at the NPP Government over what opponents describe as a lack of confidence to face the people at a mid-term Polls.
Although the NPP came to power promising democratic renewal and institutional reform, no date has yet been announced for the long-delayed PC Elections. Instead, the Government has appointed a Parliamentary Select Committee to recommend reforms to the electoral system before the Polls are held, a move that critics view as another postponement rather than a solution.
Sri Lanka's nine PCs have remained without elected representatives since 2018, with Provincial administration continuing under Governors appointed by the President. The delay has spanned successive Governments, from the administrations of former Presidents, making it one of the longest interruptions to Provincial democracy since the establishment of the Councils under the 13th Amendment to the Constitution in 1987.
The Government's principal justification remains the unresolved legal complications arising from the mixed electoral system introduced through amendments to the PCs Elections Act in 2017. Officials argue that the delimitation process remains incomplete and that Parliament must first decide whether to retain the mixed system or revert to proportional representation before the Elections can be conducted.
Opposition parties however, argue that the legal obstacles have become a convenient political excuse.
The JVP historically opposed the PC structure established under the 13th Amendment following the Indo-Lanka Accord and initially boycotted them. Even today, influential sections within the Party remain skeptical about devolved Provincial governance, viewing it as an inefficient and externally imposed political arrangement. The JVP’s powerful General Secretary Mesthree Tilvin Silva himself described the PC system as “unsuccessful” in addressing Sri Lanka’s national issues.
The SJB, the SLPP, Tamil parties and election monitoring organisations contend that if the Government genuinely wished to hold Elections, Parliament could quickly amend the relevant Legislation — as it has done for other urgent political priorities. Instead, they argue, repeated references to committees, consultations and electoral reforms merely prolong the status quo.
Independent analysts expressed concern, stating that successive Governments — including the current administration — have failed to honour repeated public commitments to restore PCs through Elections. They argue that prolonged delays weaken representative democracy and deny citizens the Constitutional right to elect their Provincial representatives. Political analysts suggest that electoral calculations may also be influencing the Government's cautious approach.
Following its sweeping victories in the 2024 Presidential and Parliamentary Elections, the NPP enjoyed unprecedented national popularity. However, more recent electoral contests have revealed a more competitive political environment, leading some observers to speculate the Government may prefer to postpone another nationwide Election until it believes that public support has stabilised. While there is no direct evidence that electoral considerations are the determining factor, the absence of a clear timetable has fuelled such speculation.
Government leaders reject accusations that they are deliberately avoiding Elections. They maintain that conducting Polls under a defective legal framework would invite litigation and create fresh Constitutional complications.
Nevertheless, critics point out that the NPP administration has now been in office long enough to present either draft Legislation or a definitive election timetable. The absence of either, they argue, has inevitably created the perception that political convenience has overtaken democratic necessity.
Until a firm Election date is announced, questions over the Government's political commitment to restoring Provincial democracy are likely to persist, adding another chapter to Sri Lanka's long history of postponed Elections and unfinished Constitutional reforms.
The one-way fuel meter
When tensions erupted in the Middle East (ME), Sri Lanka's fuel authorities worked with Formula One speed. US President Donald Trump attacked on 28 June and oil prices went up on Monday (29). Sri Lanka’s top leaders met on Tuesday (30). Fuel prices went up on Tuesday midnight.
The public was informed that "international market conditions have compelled us to make this difficult decision."
Then came the ceasefire. Oil prices came down. Tankers sailed peacefully. Markets relaxed. Economists smiled. Motorists waited. And waited. And waited some more.
Apparently, fuel prices in Sri Lanka have discovered the famous hospital of former Health Minister Keheliya Rambukwella fame. You can check in any time you like, but you can never leave.
Government spokespersons patiently explain that prices cannot be reduced overnight because "many factors must be considered." Now that the ME has calmed down, entirely new factors have appeared: inventory costs, pricing formulas, exchange rates, strategic reserves, fiscal stability, weather patterns, lunar cycles and perhaps even Mercury being in retrograde.
Curiously, when prices were increased by over Rs 100, none of these "many factors" seemed to exist. There was only one factor — the ME. Now, after patient consideration, they came up with a reduction of Rs 20 and asked the people to praise the Government.
Sri Lankan motorists have become amateur geopolitical analysts. They know that if a drone flies over the Persian Gulf, petrol prices in Colombo will rise before the drone lands. But, if peace breaks out, negotiations, committee meetings and complex calculations begin.
One economist joked that Sri Lanka has discovered a new economic theory: "Prices obey Isaac Newton's Law in only one direction. What goes up must remain there."
Perhaps the Petroleum Corporation should replace its fuel gauge with a one-way arrow pointing upwards.
After all, in Sri Lankan economics, gravity applies to oil prices everywhere in the world — except at the local filling station.
The writer is a journalist, diplomat, and media professional with experience in public communication and international media relations
--------------------------
The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication