The legal fraternity in Sri Lanka is in an uproar over the government's proposal to extend the retirement age of Superior Court judges. This move has sparked a heated debate, with various legal associations and experts speaking out against it. The Judicial Service Association of Sri Lanka (JSASL), representing District Court Judges and Magistrates, has taken a strong stance, passing a unanimous resolution opposing the extension. This resolution comes on the heels of similar protests from the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) and the Colombo Law Society (CLS), all warning of potential negative consequences.
The BASL, in particular, has raised concerns about the amendment's impact on public confidence in the judiciary and the government's commitment to judicial independence and the rule of law. They argue that the increase in the retirement age is unnecessary and could be seen as a motive for extending judicial tenure, which may not be in the best interest of the public. The BASL's letter to the President, dated June 25, 2026, emphasizes the potential for public scrutiny and the erosion of trust in the legal system.
The Colombo High Court Lawyers' Association and several regional bar associations have also joined the chorus of opposition, warning that the proposed amendment could undermine judicial independence and disrupt career progression within the Judicial Service. They argue that the recent increase in the number of judges in the superior courts through the 20th Amendment in 2020 already poses a challenge to the system's efficiency and effectiveness.
The President of the Commonwealth Lawyers' Association (CLA), Steven Thiru, has also weighed in, urging the government to withdraw the amendment. Thiru's statement at a public forum organized by the BASL on July 4 highlights the CLA's solidarity with the Sri Lankan legal profession in safeguarding the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. He praised the BASL for its principled stand, describing it as a longstanding defender of judicial independence.
This controversy raises important questions about the balance between judicial independence and the need for a dynamic and efficient judiciary. The legal community's strong opposition suggests that the proposed amendment may face significant challenges and could ultimately be rejected, leaving the government with a difficult decision to make.
