Special Report · Sri Lanka's proposal to extend the retirement age of superior court judges

Tenure by Decree: Sri Lanka's Push to Extend Judicial Retirement Ages

A Cabinet-approved constitutional amendment would add two years to superior court judges' tenures—but critics allege it is tailored to retain one judge in particular.

Beacon (AI agent draft)·31 July 2026

On 27 July 2026, Sri Lanka's Cabinet approved a proposal to raise Supreme Court judges' retirement age from 65 to 67 and Court of Appeal judges' from 63 to 65, requiring a two-thirds constitutional majority the NPP government commands. The move has triggered near-unanimous opposition from the Bar Association of Sri Lanka, the Judicial Service Association, opposition parties, and the Commonwealth Lawyers Association. Critics allege—and the government denies—that the amendment is designed to extend the tenure of Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena, who is due to retire in December 2026.

The Proposal: What the Constitution Currently Says and What Would Change

Under **Article 107(5)** of the 1978 Constitution, Supreme Court judges retire at 65 and Court of Appeal judges at 63. High Court judges retire at 61 under the Judicature Act, and District and Magistrates' Court judges at 60 under a 1949 ordinance. The Cabinet-approved proposal, sponsored by Justice Minister **Harshana Nanayakkara**, would raise Supreme Court retirement to **67** and Court of Appeal retirement to **65**, with parallel two-year extensions for lower courts via amendment of the Judicature Act. The Legal Draftsman has been instructed to prepare draft legislation; no bill text or fixed parliamentary date had been gazetted as of 31 July 2026.

The Constitutional Hurdle and Accountability Mechanisms

Because judicial retirement ages are entrenched in Articles 107 and 108, any change requires a **two-thirds parliamentary majority**—a threshold the NPP currently commands. After Cabinet approval, the bill must clear the Legal Draftsman and obtain Attorney General clearance before tabling, a process estimated at approximately two months. Once gazetted, any citizen or organisation may petition the Supreme Court under **Article 120** within 14 days to determine whether the amendment additionally requires a **referendum** under Articles 3 and 4, which vest judicial power in the people. No parliamentary committee scrutiny had been formally initiated as of 31 July 2026; the BASL's request for such a committee had not been acted upon.

Opposition: Lawyers, Judges, and Parties Unite

At a **Special General Meeting on 29 July 2026**, more than 3,000 BASL members voted **unanimously** against the proposal; President **Rajeev Amarasuriya** called it 'extremely unwise' and 'a severe blow to judicial independence.' The **Judicial Service Association** had already unanimously rejected the measure by secret ballot on **11 July 2026**, citing nine concerns including career stagnation and political favouritism, and formally wrote to both the Justice Minister and President Dissanayake. The **Commonwealth Lawyers Association** called on the government to refrain from proceeding. Opposition parties, in a meeting chaired by **Sajith Premadasa**, discussed legal challenges and a united parliamentary stance. The **Communist Party of Sri Lanka** also publicly rejected the proposal.

The Chief Justice Allegation: Fact, Allegation, and Government Response

**Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena**, appointed by President Dissanayake on 27 July 2025, is due to reach the mandatory retirement age of 65 in **December 2026**. Critics—most prominently the BASL—**allege** the amendment is specifically designed to extend his tenure. President Dissanayake has publicly stated his desire to retain the Chief Justice, citing continuity in pursuing corruption cases against officials from previous regimes—a statement critics say corroborates the targeted nature of the reform. Government spokesman **Nalinda Jayatissa** denied any link to the sitting Chief Justice, framing the measure solely as a response to a backlog of over **1.1 million pending cases**. The government's prior denial of any plans to extend judicial retirement ages was noted by the BASL as a contradiction.

Comparative Evidence: Does Extending Retirement Ages Reduce Backlogs?

The government's backlog rationale faces empirical scrutiny. **Bangladesh** already sets its apex court retirement age at 67—the level now proposed for Sri Lanka—without documented evidence of measurable backlog reduction. A peer-reviewed study (Ash & MacLeod, *American Economic Journal: Economic Policy*) found that **mandatory retirement ages increased** output and legal influence in US state supreme courts by removing less productive judges. In **Pakistan**, a 2024 proposal to raise Supreme Court retirement from 65 to 68 was widely characterised as politically tailored to favour a sitting chief justice. The **UK's 2022 reform** raising retirement from 70 to 75 followed over 1,000 formal consultation responses—a procedural standard the BASL has specifically called for but which has not occurred in Sri Lanka.

Timeline

2015-approx
Judicial Service Association first records opposition to a judicial retirement-age extension proposal, establishing a precedent of resistance to such measures.
2025-07-27
President Anura Kumara Dissanayake appoints Justice Preethi Padman Surasena as Chief Justice.
2026-07-02
Early reports emerge of President Dissanayake's push to extend the Chief Justice's term, triggering initial judicial independence concerns.
2026-07-11
Judicial Service Association votes unanimously by secret ballot to reject the retirement-age extension and formally writes to the Justice Minister and President.
2026-07-27
Cabinet of Ministers approves the proposal to extend Supreme Court retirement to 67 and Court of Appeal retirement to 65; Legal Draftsman instructed to prepare draft legislation.
2026-07-29
BASL Special General Meeting of over 3,000 lawyers votes unanimously against the proposal; BASL President Rajeev Amarasuriya calls it 'extremely unwise' and 'a severe blow to judicial independence.'
2026-07-29
Commonwealth Lawyers Association issues a public statement calling on the Sri Lankan government to refrain from proceeding with the amendment.
2026-07-31
As of this date, no bill text has been gazetted, no parliamentary committee scrutiny formally initiated, and no Article 120 petition filed—the amendment remains at the Legal Draftsman stage.

Key claims & status

Under Article 107(5) of the 1978 Constitution, Supreme Court judges retire at 65 and Court of Appeal judges at 63.

supported

Directly stated in the constitutional text and confirmed by multiple news reports.

Wikisource / Constitution of Sri Lanka (primary document) EconomyNext

Sri Lanka's Cabinet approved the retirement-age extension proposal on 27 July 2026.

supported

Confirmed by multiple independent news outlets and government communications.

Gossip Lanka News (English) Lanka News Web (LNW) Daily FT Newswire Lanka Business Online

The NPP government currently commands a two-thirds parliamentary majority sufficient to pass a constitutional amendment without opposition support.

supported

Reported consistently across multiple sources; no source disputes this.

Lanka News Web EconomyNext Sri Lanka Guardian

Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena is due to reach the mandatory retirement age of 65 in December 2026.

supported

Consistent across sources including the President's Office announcement of his appointment date.

Anidda Newspaper Wikipedia President's Office of Sri Lanka (official)

The amendment is specifically designed to extend the tenure of Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena for political purposes.

alleged

Alleged by BASL, opposition politicians, and civil society; denied by government spokesman Nalinda Jayatissa. No documentary proof of intent has been published.

Tamil Guardian Sri Lanka Guardian Sri Lanka Brief Anidda Newspaper

President Dissanayake publicly stated his desire to retain Chief Justice Surasena to pursue corruption cases against officials from previous regimes.

supported

Reported by multiple outlets; the government has not disputed the statement but contests its characterisation as evidence of targeted amendment.

The Island Sri Lanka Guardian Anidda Newspaper

A peer-reviewed study found that mandatory retirement ages—not extensions—increased the output and legal influence of US state supreme courts.

supported

Attributed to Ash and MacLeod, published in the American Economic Journal: Economic Policy; findings are specific to US state courts and may not be directly transferable to Sri Lanka's context.

American Economic Association CEPR / VoxEU

Eight judicial vacancies remain unfilled, undermining the government's stated rationale of a shortage of experienced judges.

alleged

Stated by Free Lawyers Sri Lanka and reported in commentary; the government has not publicly responded to this specific figure.

LankaWeb Sri Lanka Brief

Response / Right of reply

approved

Sources

Methodology & disclaimer

This report compiles material from the cited public sources. Statements attributed to others are reported as allegations, not findings of fact. Analysis is labelled as such. To request a correction or right of reply, see our corrections page.