The Sri Lanka Supreme Court will begin hearings on September 1, 2026, to review the constitutionality of the proposed 22nd Amendment. The legislation aims to increase the retirement age of higher court judges to help reduce a backlog of 1.1 million pending cases. However, legal associations have raised significant concerns regarding judicial independence and the potential for executive overreach.
The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka is set to begin a high-stakes legal process on September 1, 2026, regarding the constitutionality of the proposed 22nd Amendment. The bill seeks to extend the retirement age for Supreme Court justices from 65 to 67 years and for Court of Appeal judges from 63 to 65 years. Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena has appointed a five-judge bench to hear the various petitions filed against the legislation.
The government has positioned this amendment as a necessary administrative reform. Proponents of the bill argue that increasing the tenure of experienced judicial officers will provide the continuity needed to clear a massive backlog of over 1.1 million cases that are currently pending across the country’s judicial system. From the perspective of institutional efficiency, the government maintains that retaining veteran judges is a practical solution to current caseload pressures.
However, the proposal has encountered substantial resistance from legal organizations, including the Bar Association of Sri Lanka. Critics argue that extending tenure in this manner without broad consensus could undermine judicial independence and the separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary. Opponents of the bill contend that such a significant structural change, if implemented without a national referendum or wider public scrutiny, could leave the judicial system vulnerable to external political influence.
International and local observers are closely monitoring the proceedings for their potential impact on constitutional stability. The court's role in this case is to determine whether the proposed changes align with the current constitution or if they require more rigorous parliamentary and public oversight. For stakeholders, the key monitorable will be the outcome of the court's upcoming deliberations and whether the administration can proceed with its current legislative agenda or if the bill will face significant legal or procedural hurdles.