Supreme Court Concludes Hearings on Sri Lanka’s 22nd Constitutional Amendment
In a pivotal moment for Sri Lanka’s judicial system, the Supreme Court concluded hearings on the proposed 22nd Amendment to the Constitution and the Judicature (Amendment) Bill. The Government, represented by Solicitor General Viraj Dayaratne, aims to enhance the efficiency of the nation’s judiciary amidst concerns about potential violations of constitutional provisions.
Government’s Defense of the Bill
During the proceedings, Solicitor General Dayaratne defended the proposed amendments, asserting that they would actually reduce executive power rather than increase it. “Your Lordships, this proposed constitutional amendment reduces the powers of the Executive rather than increasing them,” he stated. He dismissed claims that the amendment violated Articles 3 and 4 of the Constitution, suggesting the petitioners failed to provide a legal basis for their assertions.
The Solicitor General further contended that the proposed changes regarding the retirement age of judges were consistent with global norms, using examples from judicial systems in the U.S. and the U.K. He emphasized that the current retirement age of judges in Sri Lanka, higher than that of public servants, aligns with historical practices.
Opposition Argument: No Need for a Referendum
President’s Counsel Nigel Hatch, representing petitioner Lakshman Nipuna Arachchi, argued against the necessity for a referendum on the amendment. He pointed to precedents where previous amendments, such as the 20th Amendment increasing the number of judges, did not require referendums. “If that was the case, how can increasing the retirement age of judges under the 22nd Amendment become a constitutional issue?” he questioned, illustrating that the modifications do not undermine judicial independence.
Endorsements for the Amendment
Other legal representatives joined the fray, echoing sentiments that increasing the retirement age is a reasonable measure in today’s context of rising life expectancy. President’s Counsel Mohan Weerakoon emphasized that the proposal is timely due to demographic changes, pointing out that average life expectancies have significantly increased over the decades.
Attorney-at-Law G.G. Arulpragasam further reinforced this view, declaring the amendment’s intention to elevate, not undermine, judicial independence. “Increasing the retirement age of judges is not an arbitrary measure, as seen in other developed countries with higher thresholds,” he asserted.
The Path Forward
As the hearing wrapped up, the Supreme Court bench directed petitioners to submit their replies by 3 p.m. the following day. Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena assured that the Court’s determinations will be communicated confidentially to the Speaker of Parliament soon.
The discussions surrounding the 22nd Amendment illuminate the ongoing tug-of-war between enhancing the judiciary’s operational capacity and safeguarding its independence. The forthcoming decision will likely have far-reaching implications on Sri Lanka’s constitutional framework.