Judges’ retirement age extension threatens judicial independence and requires a referendum, former Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva says.
The proposed judges’ retirement age extension would deliver a serious blow to judicial independence and requires public approval through a referendum, former Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva has said.
Speaking during a special discussion with Hiru TV, Silva argued that the government’s decision to extend the retirement ages of Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judges violated constitutional principles.
He also described the move as an infringement on the sovereign power of the people.
Silva strongly opposed the proposal, saying it could amount to a privilege or “bribe” offered by the government to serving judges.
Under the present Constitution, judicial power forms part of the people’s sovereignty. Therefore, he said, any significant change affecting that structure must go before the public at a referendum.
Get Breaking News First
on WhatsApp
Judges’ Retirement Age Could Affect Independence
“The retirement age was determined based on a certain policy. The framers of the 1978 Constitution very wisely included provisions to protect judicial independence. What is happening now is the betrayal of that independence for political needs,” Silva said.
The former Chief Justice also warned that retaining older judges for longer periods could reduce the efficiency of the judicial system.
He argued that such an extension would limit opportunities for younger and more capable judges to advance into senior judicial positions.
Silva also rejected comparisons with judicial systems in countries such as the United States and Britain. He said adopting those models would not necessarily work in Sri Lanka.
Sri Lanka’s Constitution, he maintained, rests on an intellectual and constitutional foundation developed for the country’s own circumstances.
Silva urged the government to abandon what he called patchwork solutions. He warned that changing the judges’ retirement age in this manner would weaken judicial independence and undermine public confidence in the courts.
