The debate over extending the retirement age of Sri Lankan Judges, from 65 to 67 in the Supreme Court (SC), 63 to 65 in the Court of Appeal, and by two years in the lower courts, has drawn sharp resistance from the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL). Opponents argue the move threatens judicial independence and lacks justification.
While the legal fraternity’s defense of the Bench is essential, opposing this reform is misplaced. Strip away the rhetoric, and extending judicial tenure is not an attack on the rule of law. It is a practical, modernising measure that strengthens the judicial capacity and protects the public interest. The objections fail to hold up under careful scrutiny.
First, critics claim that applying the extension to sitting judges creates a perception of political favouritism. This confuses arbitrary patronage with standard constitutional reform. The proposed amendment applies universally across all judicial tiers, establishing a neutral rule rather than a selective benefit for specific individuals. Furthermore, raising tenure limits brings Sri Lanka into alignment with international benchmarks such as the UK (70/75), Australia (70), and Canada (75) reflecting modern life expectancies and health standards.
Second, opponents raise the issue of conflict of interest, noting that sitting SC Judges who rule on constitutional challenges to the amendment stand to benefit from it. However, constitutional law routinely handles this through the established doctrine of necessity. Institutional governance cannot be paralysed simply because a law of general application affects the Bench as a whole. Demanding that extensions apply only to future appointees would create a fragmented, "two-tier" Bench operating under different terms. An administrative nightmare that undermines collegiality and legal consistency.
Third, the argument the Government should focus solely on filling vacancies ignores a pressing reality: Sri Lanka’s justice system is burdened with over 1.1 million pending cases. Forcing seasoned appellate judges into retirement at 63 or 65 deprives the nation of vital institutional memory and jurisprudential authority at the precise moment that court backlogs demand high disposal rates. Extending tenure preserves experienced talent while new cadres are recruited and onboarded.
Fourth, critics dismiss the reform as an "ad-hoc" measure pushed without multi-year consultation. Yet, practical governance requires timely solutions to urgent operational bottlenecks. A constitutional amendment is not an Executive decree; it requires a two-thirds Parliamentary majority, guaranteeing public debate and legislative scrutiny before enactment.
Finally, while opponents correctly point out that tenure extensions do not resolve infrastructural or procedural deficits, human capital and modern infrastructure are not mutually exclusive. Courtroom digitisation and physical expansion take years to complete. Retaining experienced judges serves as an immediate bridge strategy to keep the courts functioning effectively while long-term structural reforms are rolled out.
An independent judiciary requires stability, predictability, and adequate operational capacity. By establishing a modern retirement framework, Sri Lanka is not compromising its Judiciary, it is fortifying it. The legal community should recognise this amendment for what it truly is: a necessary step toward delivering timely justice to the public.
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