FINANCIAL CHRONICLE – The administration of President Anura Kumara Dissanayake in Sri Lanka is set to increase the compulsory retirement age for judges by two years, raising it to 65 across the judicial hierarchy. The Cabinet has already endorsed this initiative, despite objections from prominent legal professionals.
According to the new framework, judges of the Supreme Court will retire at 67 instead of the current 65, while judges of the Court of Appeal will now retire at 65 rather than 63. High Court judges will see their retirement age raised from 61 to 63, and District Court judges and magistrates will retire at 62 instead of 60. Adjustments for superior court judges necessitate a constitutional amendment, as the retirement ages are enshrined in Sri Lanka’s 1978 Constitution. Legislative changes will similarly apply to lower court judges.
The government justifies the adjustment as a necessary measure to address systemic challenges within the judicial system. Sri Lanka is grappling with an extensive backlog of approximately 1.1 million pending cases, with many individuals waiting several years, and in some instances, over a decade for their cases to be resolved. Officials attribute this backlog to a lack of experienced judicial personnel, a situation exacerbated by the recent economic crisis that has seen a significant brain drain, along with difficulties in recruitment.
Supporters of the government argue that extending the tenure of experienced judges will aid in reducing the backlog and facilitate career advancement within the judiciary. They assert that this change is uniformly applicable and not tailored to benefit specific judges, although detractors claim the amendment seeks to prolong the tenure of a particular top judge.
Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara, along with Cabinet spokesperson Nalinda Jayatissa, has associated the proposal with a broader strategy that includes increasing the number of judges, enhancing institutional support such as the Attorney General’s and Government Analyst’s departments, and modernizing court procedures.
This proposal has faced considerable pushback, with unified opposition from various legal entities. The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL), which represents over 26,000 lawyers, has been at the forefront of this resistance. In a recent special general meeting attended by around 3,000 lawyers, members unanimously opposed the amendment in its current form. BASL President Rajeev Amarasuriya characterized the initiative as “unethical” and a potential threat to judicial independence.
The central concern raised by BASL is that altering the retirement age for sitting superior court judges could create the perception of executive interference within the judiciary. Under the existing constitutional framework, Supreme Court judges retire at 65 and Court of Appeal judges at 63, ages that have remained unchanged for nearly fifty years and are considered essential to judicial independence alongside provisions for appointments, removals, salaries, and pensions.
BASL contends that changing these ages while judges are still in office could suggest that the executive branch is attempting to influence which judges serve on higher courts. Even if the government’s intentions are administrative, the mere perception of political motivation could undermine public trust in the judiciary’s impartiality, which is vital for the rule of law.
The association argues that the government has not provided substantial, evidence-based justification for the necessity of extending retirement ages. They highlight that the number of Supreme Court judges was increased from 11 to 17 and Court of Appeal judges from 12 to 20 under the 20th Amendment in 2020. BASL believes that the appropriate response to judicial shortages or delays should focus on filling existing vacancies through established constitutional procedures, rather than extending the tenure of current judges.
Furthermore, BASL maintains that the issues surrounding the backlog of approximately 1.1 million cases, delays, and capacity challenges call for systemic reforms such as improved case management, digitalization, better infrastructure, and expedited recruitment processes, rather than an arbitrary adjustment to tenure regulations.
In addition to the lack of consultation, BASL has criticized the proposal for being developed without adequate engagement with key stakeholders in the justice sector, including the Bar Association, the Judicial Service Association, and senior legal professionals. The association sent letters to the President and Justice Minister earlier in 2026 expressing concerns but claims to have received no substantive replies prior to the Cabinet’s decision.
BASL argues that any modifications affecting judges’ constitutional tenure must follow transparent, evidence-based processes with broad stakeholder involvement. They caution that allowing the government to amend constitutional retirement ages in a piecemeal fashion could set a precarious precedent, enabling future administrations to similarly alter tenure rules for political expediency.
Critics have also raised concerns regarding possible targeting of specific judges, particularly in light of the impending retirement of Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena. While the government denies any intent to single out individuals, the timing of the proposal has led some to refer to it as the “Surasena Amendment.” BASL has clarified that its opposition is based on principle and not directed towards any specific judge, though they acknowledge that the proposal’s timing and presentation could foster perceptions of personalized legislation.
In a recently adopted seven-point resolution, BASL urged the government to prioritize filling existing judicial vacancies through the established constitutional process, and to implement recommendations from existing justice sector assessments aimed at reducing delays, enhancing institutional capacity, modernizing court infrastructure, and improving access to justice. They also suggested that any changes to the tenure of serving judges should only occur when there is a clear institutional necessity, with proper transparency, consultation, and constitutional evaluation.
BASL has framed its opposition as a defense of the separation of powers, the rule of law, and the constitutional traditions of Sri Lanka. The association has empowered its office-bearers to take all lawful measures, both domestically and internationally, to protect judicial independence. They have also reached out to international organizations such as the Commonwealth Lawyers Association, which has echoed concerns regarding ad hoc constitutional modifications.
The Judicial Service Association of Sri Lanka, representing District Judges and Magistrates, has also expressed opposition to the extension. Various judges and senior legal professionals have echoed similar sentiments. Opposition political parties, including factions associated with Sajith Premadasa and Namal Rajapaksa, as well as former President Ranil Wickremesinghe, have criticized the proposal. International organizations like the Commonwealth Lawyers Association and LAWASIA have raised alarm about the potential adverse effects of such constitutional changes on public confidence in the judiciary.
Core objections from critics center on issues related to judicial independence and the perception of executive influence. Foreign and domestic investors regard the independence and predictability of the judiciary as critical. As the ultimate enforcers of contracts, property rights, regulatory decisions, and commercial disputes, any perception that the amendment allows the executive to influence or retain favorable judges could lead to an increased risk premium for potential investors.
In practical terms, multinational corporations and institutional investors often factor in judicial independence as part of their country risk assessments. Credit rating agencies and development finance institutions closely monitor governance indicators, particularly in a nation recovering from a default in 2022. A decline in perceived judicial independence may induce investors to hesitate regarding long-term commitments in sectors reliant on judicial enforcement, such as infrastructure, energy, real estate, banking, and large commercial contracts.
The government argues that retaining experienced judges will expedite case resolutions, which could benefit businesses through faster commercial dispute resolutions, debt recoveries, and contract enforcement. However, critics, including BASL, argue that the amendment may not adequately address the underlying causes of delays, such as understaffing, weak case management, infrastructure deficiencies, and procedural inefficiencies.
In a worst-case scenario, should public and professional confidence in higher courts diminish, businesses might turn to arbitration, which tends to be more costly, thereby increasing legal and compliance expenses. Such perceptions may also adversely affect the country’s foreign direct investment and long-term capital inflow.
Sri Lanka is actively working to attract foreign direct investment as part of its recovery from the crisis. The quality of governance is a key determinant for attracting investment, particularly from “quality” investors who offer technology, long-term capital, and high compliance standards. Potential negative ramifications could include increased caution among Western and multilateral investors who emphasize environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria and rule-of-law indicators. This scenario may also lead to intensified scrutiny in investment climate assessments and bilateral investment treaty negotiations, potentially resulting in a preference for shorter-term or more protected investments rather than substantial, irreversible capital projects.
Conversely, if the amendment is implemented transparently, uniformly, and accompanied by genuine efficiency gains such as quicker case resolutions, additional judges, and improved court administration, it may be perceived as a pragmatic step toward strengthening the justice system.
The implications of this amendment will also resonate within domestic business sentiment and the broader informal economy. Local enterprises, especially those engaged in intricate commercial litigation or regulatory matters, are particularly sensitive to perceptions of judicial independence. Ongoing controversy could generate uncertainty regarding the predictability of legal outcomes, discouraging businesses from formalizing operations if they view the courts as less reliable or more politicized, which may also impact the willingness of banks and financial institutions to offer loans against collateral requiring court enforcement.
A significant concern raised by legal experts pertains to the precedent this amendment sets. Altering the constitutional retirement age for current judges may embolden future governments to modify tenure rules again based on political convenience, thus introducing a new layer of political risk to the institutional framework that businesses rely on for stability.
The overall impact will heavily depend on the handling of the amendment, analysts suggest. In the short term, the direct economic effects may be limited. However, in the medium to long term, the greater risk lies in reputational and institutional damage. Sri Lanka is still in the process of rebuilding investor trust following a sovereign default, and any measures perceived as undermining judicial independence could increase capital costs, hinder the return of quality foreign direct investment, and make businesses more cautious about long-term commitments.
The government maintains that the amendment will enhance the efficiency of the justice system, thereby becoming more conducive to business. Critics, led by BASL, contend that any potential efficiency gains will be overshadowed by the damage to the perception of an independent judiciary, a fundamental requirement for a stable investment environment. Ultimately, the consequences of the amendment will hinge less on the two-year extension itself and more on whether the process bolsters or undermines confidence in the rule of law.
