The President of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL), Rajiv Amarasuriya, has publicly expressed his disappointment over what he described as deliberate distortions by certain media outlets regarding views shared at a recent forum focused on the retirement age of judges in Sri Lanka. Amarasuriya stated that he was "surprised and disappointed" by the manner in which some sections of the media chose to report on the proceedings, alleging that the coverage misrepresented the discussions that took place during the event.
What Happened at the Forum?
The forum in question was organized to facilitate an open and informed discussion among legal professionals, academics, and stakeholders regarding the retirement age of judges in Sri Lanka — a topic that carries significant constitutional and institutional weight. Such forums are typically convened to allow diverse perspectives to be aired in a structured and professional environment, contributing to broader policy discussions within the legal fraternity.
According to Amarasuriya, the forum provided a platform for participants to express a range of views, some of which were nuanced and context-dependent. He emphasized that the discussions were meant to be exploratory and deliberative in nature, and that no singular position was adopted as the official stance of the BASL during the event. The BASL President made clear that the purpose of the forum was to encourage dialogue, not to issue declarations or conclusions on such a sensitive matter.
BASL President's Response to Media Coverage
Rajiv Amarasuriya did not hold back in his criticism of the media coverage that followed the forum. He specifically pointed out that some media outlets had taken statements and opinions expressed by individual participants out of context, presenting them in a manner that either exaggerated or fundamentally altered their intended meaning. This, he argued, was not only misleading to the public but also potentially damaging to the reputations of those who participated in the forum in good faith.
The BASL President urged media organizations to exercise greater responsibility and accuracy when reporting on legal and constitutional matters, noting that such topics require careful and precise language. He stressed that misrepresentation of legal discourse can have far-reaching consequences, particularly when it involves institutions as critical as the judiciary. Amarasuriya called on journalists and editors to return to first principles of ethical reporting, especially when covering forums that deal with matters of national importance.
The Broader Debate on Judges' Retirement Age
The retirement age of judges in Sri Lanka has been a subject of ongoing debate within legal and political circles for some time. Currently, judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal retire at the age of 65, while judges of other courts retire at 63. There have been periodic calls from various quarters to either extend or revise these age limits, with proponents arguing that experienced judges bring invaluable institutional knowledge to the bench, while critics caution against any changes that could compromise judicial independence or create opportunities for political interference in the judiciary.
The BASL, as the primary body representing the legal profession in Sri Lanka, plays a pivotal role in shaping discourse around judicial reforms. Forums such as the one in question are part of the association's broader mandate to engage with issues that affect the administration of justice in the country. It is within this context that Amarasuriya's concerns about media distortion become particularly significant — any misrepresentation of the BASL's positions or the views of legal experts could skew public understanding of an already complex debate.
Importance of Accurate Reporting on Legal Matters
The incident highlights a recurring challenge in media coverage of legal and constitutional issues in Sri Lanka and beyond. Legal forums often involve highly technical discussions that require a certain level of background knowledge to report accurately. When media outlets simplify or sensationalize such discussions, they risk misleading the public and undermining the integrity of the institutions involved.
Amarasuriya's public statement serves as a reminder of the responsibility that comes with reporting on the judiciary — an institution whose credibility and public trust are foundational to the rule of law. The BASL President's intervention is also a signal that the legal community will not remain silent when it believes its positions have been mischaracterized in the public domain.
Conclusion
The BASL President's remarks underscore the critical need for accurate, responsible journalism when covering matters related to the judiciary and legal reform. As Sri Lanka continues to navigate important conversations about judicial governance and institutional integrity, it is essential that media coverage reflects the true substance of expert discussions rather than distorting them for narrative convenience. The Bar Association of Sri Lanka remains committed to fostering informed public debate on issues that shape the nation's legal landscape.