The Colombo High Court Lawyers’ Association has raised concern over the government’s reported proposal to extend the retirement age of judges of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, warning that such a move would undermine constitutional guarantees, stall judicial careers, and erode public trust in the independence of the judiciary.
In a letter addressed to President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, the lawyers stressed that the Constitution clearly fixes retirement ages at 63 for Appeal Court judges and 65 for Supreme Court judges, a deliberate design to balance experience with the infusion of new judicial talent. Altering these provisions without compelling constitutional justification, they argued, would amount to grave impropriety and a rewriting of the compact between the State and its citizens.
They cautioned that extending tenure would prejudice the Judicial Service by freezing vacancies and denying promotions to officers who have long aspired to elevation. This, they said, would stall career progression, undermine morale, and violate the principle of legitimate expectation in public service.
The association also warned of the erosion of public trust, noting that any perception of executive interference in judicial tenure could damage confidence in impartial justice. They highlighted scenarios where extended judges might preside over cases involving the very legislation that prolonged their service, creating conflicts of interest and compromising legitimacy.
Rejecting claims of necessity, the lawyers insisted that Sri Lanka has no shortage of qualified judicial officers. They pointed out that the Superior Courts can draw from the Judicial Service, the Attorney General’s Department, and the practising Bar, all of which provide a reservoir of capable candidates.
They further criticized the government’s failure to fill existing vacancies in the Superior Courts, describing it as a dereliction of constitutional duty. This failure, they said, has already burdened the courts, delayed hearings, and denied timely justice to litigants, including remanded accused and citizens awaiting rulings on fundamental rights.
The association underscored that no justifiable cause has been articulated for the proposed change, calling it arbitrary and constitutionally suspect. They argued that judicial tenure must remain free from executive preferences, warning that any alteration without transparent justification subverts the independence of the judiciary.
Finally, they emphasized the broader constitutional imperative of separation of powers, stating that allowing the Executive to influence judicial tenure strikes at the heart of democratic governance and risks repeating historical failures seen in other nations.
In their appeal, the lawyers made four clear requests to the President: to withdraw the proposal to extend retirement ages, to immediately fill existing vacancies in the Superior Courts, to affirm the government’s commitment to judicial independence, and to engage the legal profession and other stakeholders transparently in any future reforms.
