Chief Prelates urge President to reconsider plan to extend judges’ retirement age
COLOMBO, Tuesday – Sri Lanka’s debate over the proposed extension of the retirement age of judges of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal has entered a significant new phase after the country’s Chief Prelates formally intervened, writing to President Anura Kumara Dissanayake expressing their concerns over the Government’s proposed constitutional amendment.
Until now, the discussion had largely been confined to lawyers, constitutional experts and political leaders. The intervention by the Mahanayake Theras elevates the matter beyond a purely legal question, placing it squarely within the broader national conversation about constitutional governance, public confidence and the independence of the judiciary.
The Government has maintained that extending the retirement age would preserve valuable judicial experience, reduce disruptions caused by frequent retirements and allow the courts to retain judges whose expertise has been developed over many years. Similar increases in retirement ages have been introduced in several jurisdictions as life expectancy has increased and professional careers have lengthened.
Critics, however, argue that Sri Lanka’s circumstances differ because the retirement ages of judges of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal are themselves embedded in the Constitution rather than being prescribed through ordinary legislation.
Their concern is not simply about whether judges should retire at 65 or 67. Rather, they contend that altering the tenure of judges who are already serving could affect perceptions of judicial independence, particularly where a constitutional amendment changes the composition of the superior courts during the tenure of an incumbent government.
Those supporting the amendment reject that interpretation. They argue that increasing the retirement age does not diminish judicial independence but instead strengthens institutional continuity by retaining experienced judges for a longer period. They note that judges would continue to enjoy the same constitutional protections regarding appointment, remuneration and removal from office.
At the heart of the disagreement lies a constitutional question that may ultimately require judicial interpretation.
Opponents contend that because judicial independence forms part of the sovereignty of the People protected under Article 3 of the Constitution, any amendment affecting the tenure of sitting superior court judges would require approval at a national referendum under Article 83.
Supporters disagree. They argue that not every constitutional amendment touching the judiciary necessarily affects the sovereignty of the People and that Parliament, acting with the required two-thirds majority, may legitimately amend retirement provisions where judicial independence itself remains intact.
The intervention by the Chief Prelates therefore comes at a particularly sensitive moment. Whether one agrees with their position or not, their decision to communicate directly with the Head of State underscores the wider constitutional significance now being attached to the issue.
