Sri Lanka’s NPP government pushes a constitutional amendment to raise apex court judges’ retirement ages by two years, citing efficiency and a massive case backlog, but lawyers, judges and church leaders warn it threatens judicial independence and sets a dangerous precedent.

On 27 July 2026, Sri Lanka’s Cabinet of Ministers approved a proposal that has ignited one of the sharpest confrontations yet between the National People’s Power (NPP) government and the country’s legal establishment. The plan seeks a constitutional amendment to raise the retirement age of Supreme Court judges from 65 to 67 and Court of Appeal judges from 63 to 65. Parallel changes under the Judicature Act would extend the service of High Court judges, District Judges and Magistrates by two years as well.

The government, led by President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, frames the move as a practical response to a justice system buckling under approximately 1.1 million pending cases, with more than 800,000 stuck in Magistrates’ Courts alone. Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara has repeatedly argued that retaining experienced judges will improve efficiency, noting that Sri Lanka has only about 20 judges per million people compared with 40–60 in many developed jurisdictions. Cabinet spokesman and Health and Mass Media Minister Nalinda Jayatissa insisted the objective is simply “an efficient and effective judicial system” and ruled out any need for a referendum, pointing out that similar changes under the 20th Amendment in 2020 did not require one.

Yet the reaction from the legal profession has been near-unanimous rejection. On 29 July, the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL), the country’s largest legal body, held a special general meeting attended by more than 3,000 lawyers in person and online. They adopted a seven-point resolution opposing the amendment unless the government first demonstrated clear institutional necessity, conducted transparent consultation and prioritised filling existing vacancies. BASL President Rajeev Amarasuriya described the proposal as “extremely unwise.”

Independence or Interference?

Critics argue the change strikes at the heart of judicial independence, a principle enshrined in the chapter of the 1978 Constitution that also governs appointments, removals, salaries and pensions. Article 107(5) currently fixes the retirement ages; altering it mid-stream, they say, invites perceptions of political favouritism.

Senior constitutional lawyer and former parliamentarian M.A. Sumanthiran warned that even lower-court judges are uncomfortable with the plan. “If they still go ahead, it may well be the start of their downfall,” he said, noting the government’s two-thirds parliamentary majority makes passage almost certain but could set a damaging precedent. Former BASL president Saliya Pieris went further, writing that the “ill-considered measure will have far-reaching consequences adversely affecting Sri Lanka’s judiciary” and would taint President Dissanayake’s legacy by joining a list of past leaders who tried to tamper with the bench.

The Judicial Service Association of Sri Lanka (JSASL), representing District Judges and Magistrates, issued a detailed letter of opposition in late July. Its members voted unanimously against the extension, citing nine key concerns. Chief among them: a two-year freeze on promotions across the hierarchy, lengthening the already extended path to the High Court from roughly 12 to 17 years or more, and the risk of public perception that the change benefits specific sitting judges rather than the system as a whole.

Whispers have also circulated that the amendment is timed to extend the tenure of Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena, due to retire later in 2026 on turning 65. Opponents have dubbed it the “Surasena Amendment.” The government has flatly denied any personalised motive, insisting the two-year extension applies universally.

Faith Leaders and International Voices Join the Fray

Religious institutions have added their weight. The Church of Ceylon issued a statement on 30 July expressing concern that the plan “could undermine the rule of law and public confidence in the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.” It rejected the backlog justification, pointing instead to the large number of vacancies still unfilled in the appellate courts and concluding that the real motivation “lacks bona fides.” 

Rights activists echoed the sentiment, arguing that the inefficient justice system needs urgent structural reforms, not age extensions that create more chaos. Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith, Archbishop of Colombo, had earlier urged the government to keep the judiciary free and independent.

International legal bodies have also spoken. The Law Association for Asia and the Pacific (LAWASIA) and the Commonwealth Lawyers Association both warned that the move risks severely undermining public confidence and compromising judicial independence. The CLA stressed that constitutional amendments should not be made in a piecemeal or ad-hoc manner and called for proper stakeholder consultation.

Vacancies, Backlogs and Alternative Paths

Government defenders note that discussions about raising judicial retirement ages date back at least to 2015–2016, when the BASL itself and then-minister Rauff Hakeem floated similar ideas. They point to ongoing recruitment of new magistrates and plans to expand the number of judges in the Court of Appeal and High Courts, enable regional functioning of the appellate court, and strengthen supporting institutions such as the Government Analyst’s Department and the Attorney General’s Department. Nanayakkara has said only around 65 of roughly 388 judges formally objected, though the associations themselves represent far larger numbers.

Opponents counter that vacancies – eight in the superior courts alone at recent counts – should be filled first through the normal constitutional process rather than by keeping sitting judges longer. They argue that genuine efficiency gains would come from digitisation, better case management, more court staff and implementation of existing Justice Sector Assessment recommendations, not from freezing career progression for an entire generation of judicial officers.

By early August the Attorney General had reportedly cleared the draft constitutional amendment and accompanying Judicature Act changes, clearing the path for the bill to be gazetted and presented to Parliament. With the NPP’s commanding majority, passage appears likely. Whether the Supreme Court will be asked to determine if a referendum is required remains an open question, though the government maintains it is not.

A Test of Democratic Maturity

The controversy arrives at a delicate moment for Sri Lanka’s post-crisis democracy. The NPP rode to power on promises of systemic reform and clean governance. Extending judicial tenure may appear a modest administrative tweak, yet the near-unanimous resistance from the legal profession, lower judiciary and sections of civil society suggests deeper anxiety about the separation of powers.

As former BASL president Saliya Pieris observed, the consequences will outlast the present government and the judges whose terms are extended. If the amendment proceeds without broader consensus, it risks becoming a template for future administrations – of any political colour – to adjust judicial tenure according to convenience. For a country still rebuilding public trust after years of economic collapse and institutional erosion, that is a high price to pay for two extra years on the bench.