The 22nd Amendment Sri Lanka Bill does not require a referendum and can be passed by Parliament, according to the Supreme Court determination.
COLOMBO — The Supreme Court has determined that Sri Lanka’s proposed 22nd Amendment to the Constitution does not require approval at a referendum and can be passed by Parliament, according to the Court’s determination presented to the House on Tuesday.
Speaker Dr. Jagath Wickramaratne formally communicated the Supreme Court’s determination to Parliament on September 22 after receiving it from the Court.
The ruling clears an important constitutional hurdle ahead of the parliamentary debate on the Bill, scheduled for September 24 and 25.
The 22nd Amendment Bill was presented to Parliament on August 18 by Minister of Justice and National Integration Harshana Nanayakkara. It was subsequently challenged before the Supreme Court through petitions filed under Article 121(1) of the Constitution.
The proposed amendment seeks to change the retirement ages of judges of Sri Lanka’s superior courts.
Under the Bill, the retirement age of Supreme Court judges would increase from 65 to 67, while the retirement age of Court of Appeal judges would rise from 63 to 65.
For the Chief Justice, the proposed provision states that retirement would occur either upon reaching the age of 67 or after completing six years from the date of appointment as Chief Justice, whichever comes first.
The Bill also proposes amending Article 137 of the Constitution to increase the maximum number of other judges of the Court of Appeal from 19 to 24.
Constitutional challenges
The proposed amendment faced numerous petitions before the Supreme Court after being tabled in Parliament.
Among those challenging the legislation were the Centre for Policy Alternatives and its Executive Director, Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu.
Their petition argued that the proposed amendment to Article 107(5), dealing with judicial retirement ages, was inconsistent with Article 3 of the Constitution and therefore required approval by the people at a referendum.
The Attorney General took the opposite position during the Supreme Court proceedings.
Solicitor General Viraj Dayaratne, appearing for the Attorney General, submitted that the Bill did not seek to amend any of the entrenched constitutional provisions specified in Article 83 and therefore did not require a referendum.
A five-judge Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice Preethi Padman Surasena considered the constitutional challenges before forwarding its determination to the Speaker.
With the Court’s determination now before Parliament, attention turns to the scheduled two-day debate on September 24 and 25 and the subsequent parliamentary process for the proposed constitutional amendment.
