The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) has called on Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara to immediately halt any further steps toward introducing a constitutional amendment that would increase the retirement ages of Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judges. The BASL insists that meaningful consultations with key stakeholders in the justice sector must take place before any such legislative move is pursued. This development has sparked significant debate within Sri Lanka's legal community, raising important questions about judicial independence, constitutional integrity, and the proper process for reforming the country's superior court system.
BASL's Formal Request to the Justice Minister
In a formal letter addressed directly to Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara, the Bar Association of Sri Lanka expressed serious concerns regarding the proposed constitutional amendment. The BASL urged the minister to refrain from advancing the proposal until all relevant parties within the justice sector have been adequately consulted. The association emphasized that changes of this magnitude — those that directly affect the structure and functioning of Sri Lanka's highest courts — cannot and should not be rushed through without thorough deliberation and broad consensus among legal professionals, civil society, and other key stakeholders.
The BASL's letter underscores the association's commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring that any reforms to the judiciary are carried out transparently and responsibly. By formally writing to the minister, the BASL has made its position unequivocally clear: procedural integrity must be maintained when dealing with constitutional matters of such profound national importance.
What the Proposed Amendment Involves
The proposed constitutional amendment in question seeks to increase the mandatory retirement ages of judges serving in Sri Lanka's Supreme Court and Court of Appeal. Currently, the Constitution of Sri Lanka sets specific retirement ages for judges of these superior courts. Any change to these provisions would require a constitutional amendment, a process that demands a higher legislative threshold and, ideally, wide public and professional consultation.
Proponents of the amendment argue that raising the retirement age could help retain experienced judicial talent, reduce the frequency of judicial vacancies, and bring Sri Lanka's judicial retirement policies in line with those of other jurisdictions. However, critics — including the BASL — contend that the manner in which this proposal is being advanced raises red flags about transparency and the potential politicization of the judiciary.
Why Stakeholder Consultation Matters
The BASL's insistence on meaningful stakeholder consultation before proceeding with the amendment reflects a broader principle that is fundamental to democratic governance: major constitutional changes must not be made unilaterally or hastily. The justice sector encompasses a wide range of voices, including practicing attorneys, retired judges, legal academics, civil society organizations, and the public at large. Each of these groups has a legitimate interest in how the judiciary is structured and governed.
Without proper consultation, there is a risk that the amendment could be perceived as serving narrow political interests rather than the broader public good. The independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of Sri Lanka's democratic framework, and any changes to the terms and conditions under which judges serve must be handled with the utmost care and transparency. The BASL's call for consultation is therefore not merely procedural — it is a safeguard against potential misuse of constitutional reform processes.
Implications for Judicial Independence
One of the central concerns raised by legal observers is the potential impact of such an amendment on judicial independence. When governments move to change the terms of service for sitting judges — including their retirement ages — it can create an appearance of executive influence over the judiciary, even if that is not the stated intention. This perception alone can undermine public confidence in the impartiality and independence of the courts.
Sri Lanka has faced challenges related to judicial independence in the past, and the legal community remains vigilant about any developments that could compromise the separation of powers. The BASL's intervention is therefore seen by many within the legal fraternity as a necessary and timely check on executive action, ensuring that constitutional reforms are pursued through legitimate and transparent channels.
The Road Ahead
As of now, the Justice Ministry has yet to issue a formal public response to the BASL's letter. Legal experts and observers will be watching closely to see whether Minister Nanayakkara heeds the association's call and agrees to pause the amendment process pending comprehensive consultations. The outcome of this standoff could set an important precedent for how future constitutional reforms are approached in Sri Lanka.
The BASL has made it clear that it is not necessarily opposed to the idea of reviewing judicial retirement ages in principle, but it firmly believes that the process must be conducted correctly. A constitutional amendment arrived at through genuine dialogue and consensus will carry far greater legitimacy — and far less controversy — than one pushed through without adequate stakeholder engagement. The legal community, the judiciary, and the Sri Lankan public deserve nothing less than a transparent, consultative, and constitutionally sound process.