Sri Lanka’s legal community delivered an unequivocal rebuke to the Government’s plan to raise the retirement age of judges, with the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) declaring that the proposal threatens the independence of the Judiciary and must be withdrawn.
BASL votes unanimously against Government proposal
In an extraordinary display of unity, more than 3,000 lawyers gathered—both physically and online—at a Special General Meeting on Wednesday (29), where every participant voted against the Cabinet-approved proposal to extend judicial retirement ages by two years across all courts.
BASL President Rajeev Amarasuriya said the vote gave the Association an unmistakable mandate to oppose the move, describing the Government’s decision as “extremely unwise” and “a severe blow to judicial independence.”
“I asked all the lawyers who opposed the Government’s proposal to raise their hands, and every single person did. Then I asked whether anyone supported it. Not a single person agreed,” Amarasuriya told reporters at BASL headquarters in Colombo.
He said the unanimous decision strengthened the Association’s position and empowered it to take “every possible step” to resist the proposal.
Concerns over conflict of interest and long-term damage
Amarasuriya warned that the proposal places Supreme Court judges in an ethically compromised position, as they may be required to rule on a matter that directly benefits them.
“When judicial independence is undermined, it affects generations. This proposal places Supreme Court Judges themselves in an uncomfortable position,” he said.
He added that the BASL had been raising objections for nearly two months but was never allowed to present its views before the Cabinet made its decision formally.
The BASL President also said members of the Judiciary had privately expressed concern, cautioning that any erosion of judicial independence could have “serious long-term implications.”
Government urged to reconsider; referendum suggested
Amarasuriya said the Government should have consulted relevant stakeholders before moving ahead and insisted that if the Government still wishes to proceed, the matter must be placed before the public.
“If, after hearing our views, the Government still wishes to proceed, then this must inevitably be put before the people through a referendum. That is our position.”
He also noted that Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara had informed BASL representatives that he would brief President Anura Kumara Dissanayake on the Association’s concerns and communicate the Government’s response thereafter.
Senior lawyers and political figures join
Several prominent members of the legal profession attended the meeting, including Lal Wijenayake, President’s Counsels Upul Jayasuriya, M.A. Sumanthiran, and M.U.M. Ali Sabry.
Opposition MP and attorney Dayasiri Jayasekara said the gathering demonstrated “unanimous and unwavering opposition” from the legal community.
Details of the Cabinet-approved proposal
On Tuesday (28), the Cabinet approved a plan to increase the statutory retirement age of judges across all levels of the Judiciary:
- Supreme Court Judges: from 65 → 67 years
- Court of Appeal Judges: from 63 → 65 years
- High Court Judges: from 61 → 63 years
- District Court & Magistrate’s Court Judges: from 60 → 62 years
The Government has not yet publicly explained the rationale behind the proposal, though officials have previously cited “continuity” and “experience retention” as considerations.
The BASL’s unanimous rejection marks one of the strongest institutional pushbacks against a judicial reform in recent years. The confrontation sets the stage for a potential constitutional debate, especially if the Government insists on moving forward without broader consultation.