The Sri Lankan Government has rejected concerns raised by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers over proposed changes to the retirement age of judges, saying the reforms are intended to address delays in the judicial system and are not aimed at extending the tenure of particular judges.
In a six-page response sent to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on August 21, the Government said the proposed 22nd Amendment was part of broader judicial reforms aimed at reducing case backlogs, improving access to justice and retaining judicial expertise and institutional knowledge.
The response followed a communication issued on August 7 by UN Special Rapporteur Margaret Satterthwaite, who raised concerns that applying the proposed changes to judges currently serving could affect judicial independence, the separation of powers and public confidence in the judiciary.
Under the proposed 22nd Amendment, the retirement age of Supreme Court judges would increase from 65 to 67, while the retirement age of Court of Appeal judges would increase from 63 to 65. The Chief Justice would retire at 67 or after completing six years as Chief Justice, whichever comes first.
The amendment would also increase the maximum number of Court of Appeal judges from 19 to 24.
Separately, the Judicature (Amendment) Bill proposes increasing the retirement age of High Court judges from 61 to 63. It would also set the compulsory retirement age of other judges and magistrates at 62 and increase the maximum number of High Court judges from 110 to 120.
Both Bills were presented to Parliament for their first reading on August 18.
Addressing concerns that the proposed changes could benefit specific members of the judiciary, the Government said the legislation was not introduced to extend the mandates of particular judges or to immediately change the composition of the superior courts.
The Government also defended the decision to apply the proposed retirement ages to judges currently in service, arguing that excluding serving judges would undermine the objective of retaining experienced judicial officers while the number of courts and judicial positions is increased.
It further said the proposed changes would not give the executive branch the power to select which judges receive extended tenure, remove judges because of their decisions, direct judicial proceedings or interfere with judicial rulings.
The Government maintained that changing the mandatory retirement age through the proper legislative process was not inconsistent with Sri Lanka’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or international standards on judicial independence.
It acknowledged that the proposed changes could affect the expected tenure of serving judges but argued that this would not, by itself, amount to political interference.
Meanwhile, several petitions have been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the proposed legislation. The Government told the UN that it would not prejudge the Supreme Court’s decision and would fully respect its determination.
The issue has also drawn opposition from the Bar Association of Sri Lanka, which has raised concerns over judicial independence and challenged the constitutionality of the proposed amendment before the Supreme Court.
The Government said it remains committed to judicial independence and the rule of law and would continue to engage with the UN Special Rapporteur and other UN human rights mechanisms on the matter.
