JSC transfers involving Isuru Nettikumar and Uddala Suwandurugoda trigger concerns over judicial independence and judges’ retirement reforms.
The JSC transfers of two senior Assistant Secretaries have triggered serious concerns over judicial independence and alleged political interference in Sri Lanka’s courts.
Senior lawyer and journalist K. W. Janaranjana revealed that the Judicial Service Commission transferred Isuru Nettikumar and Uddala Suwandurugoda with immediate effect.
Citing reliable sources, Janaranjana alleged that their opposition to a proposed constitutional amendment directly prompted the transfers.
The proposed amendment would extend the retirement age of Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judges.
According to Janaranjana, both officials strongly opposed the government’s attempt to introduce the change.
JSC Transfers Linked to Retirement-Age Dispute
Legal circles have widely discussed claims that the amendment seeks to extend the tenure of a prominent judge.
Supreme Court Justice Vijith Malalgoda retired in mid-2026. Against that background, speculation has grown that the government wants to extend Justice Padman Surasena’s tenure by another two years.
Justice Surasena is currently scheduled to retire in December 2026.
However, these claims remain allegations attributed to Janaranjana and legal-sector sources. Authorities have not publicly confirmed that the proposed amendment targets any particular judge.
Isuru Nettikumar Sent to Hambantota
Isuru Nettikumar served as a magistrate at several important stations before joining the JSC. He is also regarded as a senior judicial officer within the legal profession.
During his recent term as Colombo Fort Magistrate, Nettikumar handled several politically sensitive and security-related cases.
Those cases involved former President Ranil Wickremesinghe, former Presidential Secretary Saman Ekanayake and former State Intelligence Service Chief Major General Suresh Sallay.
Following the transfer, authorities assigned Nettikumar to the Hambantota Magistrate’s Court with immediate effect.
Janaranjana described the move as a “punishment” transfer. He also claimed Hambantota usually serves as a posting for junior magistrates newly recruited to the judicial service.
Judicial Independence and Public Trust Questioned
Janaranjana warned that such administrative actions could place the wider judicial system at serious risk.
Meanwhile, authorities have not officially announced a new posting for Uddala Suwandurugoda, the other transferred Assistant Secretary.
The article states that Suwandurugoda also opposed the proposed retirement-age amendment.
Concerns are now growing within the legal community over the alleged use of transfers to penalise officials who defend constitutional principles or make independent decisions.
Observers warn that political interference in appointments and transfers could severely damage public confidence in the judiciary.
The controversy surrounding the JSC transfers therefore extends beyond the careers of two officials. It raises a wider question about whether judicial administrators can oppose government policy without facing professional consequences.
Official clarification from the Judicial Service Commission and the government will be essential to address the allegations and protect confidence in Sri Lanka’s judicial process.
