22nd Amendment petitions hearing concludes as the Supreme Court sends its confidential determination to the Speaker after two days of arguments.
The 22nd Amendment petitions hearing has concluded before the Supreme Court, with the five-member bench deciding to send its confidential determination to the Speaker of Parliament.
The petitions challenging the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution Bill were heard continuously over two days.
The bench comprised Chief Justice Priyantha Padman Surasena and Justices Achala Wengappuli, Arjuna Obeysekera, Sampath Abeykoon and Gihan Kulatunga.
The hearing focused heavily on the proposed retirement age of judges, judicial independence and whether the amendment requires approval through a referendum.
22nd Amendment Petitions Raise Referendum Question
Lawyers and other parties appearing for the petitioners argued that a referendum is necessary because the proposed amendment seeks to change Article 107(5) of the Constitution.
During the hearing, Ven. Balangoda Kassapa Thero, appearing as a petitioner, attempted to make submissions by referring to Buddhist doctrine and the Sutta Pitaka.
However, the Chief Justice observed that the court reaches decisions within the legal framework rather than on religious principles.
The court therefore directed that attention should remain focused on legal issues.
Ven. Kassapa Thero was also given an opportunity to submit any further material through written submissions.
Meanwhile, lawyers and President’s Counsel appearing for intervenient petitioners supporting the Bill argued that a referendum was not required.
President’s Counsel Nigel Hatch recalled that the 20th Amendment increased the number of judges in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal without a referendum.
He also noted that the 1978 Constitution increased the retirement age from 63 to 65.
Hatch argued that the proposed amendment would not undermine judicial independence or the powers of the Constitutional Council.
Lawyers Defend Higher Judicial Retirement Age
President’s Counsel Mohan Weerakoon argued that increasing the retirement age of judges was a timely measure given rising life expectancy.
He also referred to several countries, including Britain, where similar changes had been made through a simple majority.
Lawyer Chamara Nanayakkara Wasam and lawyer Niranjan Arulpraghasam also addressed the issue.
They compared judicial retirement ages in countries including the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
They argued that there were no local or international precedents showing that increasing the retirement age of judges, by itself, violates judicial independence.
The Attorney General’s Department also presented submissions during the hearing.
Solicitor General Viraj Dayaratne, appearing for the Attorney General, told court that the government introduced the 22nd Constitutional Amendment together with the Judicial Organization Amendment Bills.
He said the measures were aimed at expanding the work of the judicial system, reducing case delays and improving efficiency.
Right of Reply Draws Attention From Legal Community
After the Solicitor General concluded his submissions, lawyers appearing for the petitioners requested an opportunity to respond orally to the positions presented by the government and intervenient petitioners.
The bench did not grant an oral reply.
Instead, the court directed the petitioners to file any additional written submissions before the stipulated deadline.
Around 69 petitions had been filed in relation to the proposed amendment.
The decision not to permit an immediate oral response after the government’s position was presented has since drawn discussion among some sections of the legal community.
The issue has focused attention not only on the substance of the constitutional challenge, but also on procedure and the opportunity given to parties to respond during hearings of major constitutional importance.
However, the Supreme Court has now concluded the hearing.
Its determination will remain confidential until it is formally communicated through the constitutional process.
The court is expected to send its decision promptly to the Speaker, after which the determination will be officially presented to Parliament.
The final ruling will determine whether the proposed 22nd Amendment can proceed through Parliament under the required majority or whether additional constitutional approval, including a referendum, is necessary.
