Commonwealth Lawyers’ Association Questions Supreme Court’s Bench Decision on 22nd Amendment
On September 2, 2026, the Commonwealth Lawyers’ Association voiced profound concerns regarding the Supreme Court’s decision to hear petitions against the government’s proposed 22nd Amendment to the Constitution with a standard five-member bench rather than a larger, full bench. This controversial amendment seeks to extend the retirement age of Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judges by two years, a move perceived by many as having significant implications for judicial independence.
Steven Thiru, the President of the Commonwealth Lawyers’ Association, observed the Supreme Court proceedings, engaging with various legal professionals who highlighted their apprehensions about the case’s constitutional ramifications. Thiru pointedly questioned why a larger bench was not constituted to address an issue of such considerable importance. “Cases concerning important constitutional and judicial matters are usually heard by larger benches,” he noted, stressing the rejection of the request for an expanded panel deepens concerns regarding judicial independence.
Potential Impact on Public Confidence
Thiru further emphasized that the absence of a larger bench might erode public assurance in the sovereignty of the judiciary. His remarks come amidst growing criticisms regarding the government’s legislative maneuvers, which some perceive as undermining the autonomy of judicial institutions. The decision to empanel a broader bench typically reflects the gravity of the constitutional questions at hand; hence the choice of a more limited composition has sparked debate.
The Supreme Court recently wrapped up a two-day hearing that encompassed 67 petitions challenging the constitutionality of the 22nd Amendment Bill. Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena, leading the five-member bench, presided over submissions from legal representatives of both the petitioners and supporters of the Amendment, along with the Attorney General.
Next Steps and Public Sentiment
A ruling on the constitutionality of the Bill is anticipated, with the Supreme Court pledging to relay its confidential determination to the Speaker of Parliament. Legal factions involved were instructed to submit written documents by the afternoon of September 3.
The government introduced the contentious Bill to Parliament on August 18. Following this, citizens were afforded an opportunity to challenge its legality before the Supreme Court, reflecting an ongoing engagement between the government’s legislative agenda and a public responsive judiciary.
As these developments unfold, the legal community and the general populace will be keenly observing the Supreme Court’s final determination, as it stands to influence not only the fate of the 22nd Amendment but also the very essence of judicial independence in Sri Lanka.