The judges’ retirement age proposal faced unanimous rejection as all 65 judicial officers at an emergency JSA meeting voted against it.
The government’s judges’ retirement age proposal suffered a major setback today after 65 judicial officers unanimously voted against the planned constitutional amendment.
The Judicial Service Association passed the resolution during an emergency general meeting held at the Kaduwela Magistrate’s Court premises. Every judge present opposed the proposed extension for Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judges.
The decisive vote came amid internal turmoil within the association, including the immediate resignation of JSA President Pasan Amarasena. It also followed weeks of mounting tension between judicial officers and the government over the controversial proposal.
JSA Secretary Suranga Munasinghe convened the meeting earlier today. Judges attended from across the island, including district judges and magistrates representing every province.
Their unanimous decision delivered a forceful rejection of the government’s plan and highlighted deep concern within the judiciary over its potential effect on judicial independence.
Judges’ Retirement Age Plan Rejected Unanimously
The government has proposed amending Article 107(5) of the Constitution to increase the retirement age of superior court judges.
Under the planned amendment, Supreme Court judges would retire at 67 instead of 65. Court of Appeal judges would remain in office until 65 rather than retiring at 63.
The issue has become one of the most contentious matters facing Sri Lanka’s judiciary in recent years.
All 65 judges who attended the emergency meeting voted against the government’s proposal. Not one judicial officer supported the retirement age extension.
The outcome represented a rare display of complete unity among members of the judiciary.
Judges from all parts of the country took part in the meeting. Their participation included district judges and magistrates serving throughout Sri Lanka.
The unanimous resolution sends a clear message that judicial officers strongly oppose what they view as a possible intrusion into the independence of the courts.
Critics also fear that extending the terms of superior court judges could delay promotion opportunities for hundreds of judges serving in lower courts.
JSA President Resigns Before Crucial Vote
Hours before the meeting, JSA President Pasan Amarasena resigned from his position with immediate effect.
Amarasena, who serves as the Fort Magistrate, addressed his resignation letter to the association’s membership. In it, he raised serious allegations against Secretary Suranga Munasinghe and the JSA Executive Committee.
Amarasena alleged that the Secretary had departed from established traditions by failing to obtain the concurrence of the Judicial Service Commission before calling the special general meeting.
He also claimed that the Secretary had altered minutes from an Executive Committee meeting. According to Amarasena, this allegedly allowed the meeting to proceed without the required quorum.
The outgoing President further accused the Secretary of attempting to convene an illegal meeting to serve political agendas.
However, Munasinghe firmly rejected every accusation. He also confirmed that the emergency meeting would proceed as scheduled.
Secretary Rejects Allegations as Meeting Continues
Following Amarasena’s resignation, Munasinghe issued an urgent notice to JSA members.
“All allegations made against the Executive Committee and myself are entirely rejected. The special general meeting will proceed as planned at the Kaduwela Magistrate’s Court this morning,” he said.
Munasinghe also said he possessed two documents formally notifying the Judicial Service Commission about the planned meeting.
The association proceeded with the gathering despite the President’s absence. Munasinghe chaired the proceedings, which ended with all 65 attending judges opposing the proposed amendment.
The vote came despite the administrative dispute and allegations surrounding the meeting’s organisation.
Its unanimous outcome also demonstrated that opposition to the judges’ retirement age extension extended well beyond the association’s internal leadership disagreements.
Legal Groups Warn of Threat to Judicial Independence
The government’s proposed constitutional amendment has drawn strong opposition from legal professionals and civil society organisations.
Critics argue that changing the retirement ages could weaken judicial independence by creating opportunities for political influence over judges and judicial appointments.
They also warn that longer tenures for Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judges could block promotions within the judicial service.
Another concern is the absence of any clear public or professional demand for the amendment. Judges, civil society groups and the Bar Association of Sri Lanka had not requested such a change.
Opponents have described the government’s attempt to use its two-thirds parliamentary majority to pass the amendment as executive overreach.
The Bar Association of Sri Lanka, Commonwealth Lawyers Association and Asian Lawyers Association have all voiced opposition to the proposal.
Their concerns focus on judicial independence, the separation of powers and the possible effect on the career progression of lower court judges.
Historic Vote Delivers Powerful Message
The unanimous decision marked a rare moment of unity across Sri Lanka’s judiciary.
Journalist Saroj Pathirana, who covered the meeting, said judges gathered in Kaduwela despite pressure from the highest levels to prevent it.
“This is a historic moment for the judiciary,” Pathirana said. “Despite all attempts to disrupt the meeting, the judges have shown that they will not remain silent when judicial independence is threatened.”
The resolution places additional pressure on the government as it considers whether to proceed with the amendment.
Although the government retains the parliamentary majority required to approve the change, united judicial opposition may carry serious legal and political consequences.
The proposal could face constitutional challenges. At the same time, the judges’ public stand may strengthen confidence among people concerned about the independence of the courts.
However, the government could also face growing resistance from legal professionals and civil society if it continues with the judges’ retirement age plan.
Government Faces Difficult Decision
President Anura Kumara Dissanayake and Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara are expected to respond to the judiciary’s rejection in the coming days.
Parliament may debate the constitutional amendment within the coming weeks.
Meanwhile, the Judicial Service Association could consider further action if the government moves ahead despite the unanimous resolution.
Any amendment approved by Parliament may also face legal challenges before the Supreme Court.
The dispute has now intensified tensions between the executive and judicial branches. It has also raised broader questions about judicial independence and the constitutional separation of powers.
The government must now decide whether to proceed using its parliamentary majority or seek a compromise with the judiciary.
Whatever happens next, the vote by all 65 attending judges has transformed the proposal from a constitutional policy debate into a direct confrontation over the future independence and structure of Sri Lanka’s judicial system.
