Archive · 23 Aug 2026
Tamil Party Demands Referendum on Sri Lankan Judges’ Retirement Bill
Sri Lanka is considering a law that would let judges work for longer before retiring.
The main Tamil political party wants the people to vote on this change in a national referendum.
Some opposition parties also want a referendum.
Lawyers and judicial groups say the change could let the executive interfere with the courts.
The government says older retirement ages would help courts deal with more than 1.1 million pending cases.
The proposed law would change the Constitution.
Parliament will consider it after the Supreme Court gives its opinions on legal challenges.
The debate is about both solving court delays and protecting judges’ independence.
Sri Lanka’s main Tamil party, Ilankai Tamil Arasu Kachchi, called for a national referendum on the proposed 22nd Constitution Amendment.
The bill would raise judges’ retirement ages, including from 65 to 67 for Supreme Court judges and from 63 to 65 for Court of Appeal judges.
The amendment has been before Parliament since August 18 and awaits Supreme Court rulings on challenges to its constitutionality.
Opposition parties, legal organizations and a United Nations rapporteur warned that the changes could threaten judicial independence.
The government says longer judicial terms are needed to help address a backlog of more than 1.1 million cases.
- Who
- Ilankai Tamil Arasu Kachchi, Sri Lanka’s government, opposition parties, legal organizations and United Nations rapporteur Margaret Satterthwaite.
- What
- A call for a national referendum on the proposed 22nd Constitution Amendment, which would increase judges’ retirement ages.
- When
- The amendment has been on Parliament’s order book since August 18; its second reading is scheduled after Supreme Court rulings on constitutional challenges.
- Where
- Sri Lanka, including its Parliament and courts.
- Why
- Supporters say longer judicial terms could help clear a backlog of over 1.1 million cases, while critics say the amendment risks executive interference with judicial independence.
Government and supporters
Opponents and legal critics
Purpose of extending judicial terms
Government and supporters
The National People’s Power government says longer terms are necessary to help clear a backlog of more than 1.1 million cases.
Opponents and legal critics
Critics argue that extending the terms of sitting judges through an ad hoc constitutional change could enable executive and legislative interference.
Need for a referendum
Government and supporters
The government has proceeded with presenting the amendment in Parliament rather than committing to the referendum sought by its critics.
Opponents and legal critics
ITAK and several opposition parties say the measure concerns the sovereignty of the people and requires a national referendum, in addition to any required parliamentary majority.
Effect on judicial independence
Government and supporters
The government presents the amendment as an administrative measure to address delays in the courts.
Opponents and legal critics
The Bar Association of Sri Lanka, the Judicial Service Association, the Commonwealth Lawyers Association and United Nations rapporteur Margaret Satterthwaite warned that it could undermine judicial independence or create risks of executive interference.
- Proposed measure
- The 22nd Constitution Amendment would extend the retirement ages of several categories of judges.
- Supreme Court judges
- Retirement age proposed to increase from 65 to 67.
- Court of Appeal judges
- Retirement age proposed to increase from 63 to 65.
- Other judicial officers
- Retirement age for High Court, District Courts and Magistrates’ Courts judges proposed at 62.
- Parliamentary status
- The amendment has been on Parliament’s order book since August 18.
- Case backlog
- The government cites more than 1.1 million pending cases as the reason for extending judges’ terms.
- Referendum demand
- ITAK says the amendment concerns popular sovereignty and should be put to a national vote.