Government responds to UN Special Rapporteur
31-Aug-2026.
Increasing the retirement age of judges is not contrary to judicial independence, nor is it inconsistent with Sri Lanka’s obligations under the international conventions to which it is a party, the Government has told the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers.
In its response to the recent report issued by Margaret Satterthwaite, UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, the Sri Lankan Government has stated that it accepts the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary and guarantees judicial independence.
The Government further stated:
The Government of Sri Lanka appreciates the opportunity to clarify the constitutional, legislative and policy aspects relating to the proposed amendments, including the revision of the retirement age of judges, and the concerns raised in the communication dated August 7, 2026, by the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers.
The 22nd Amendment Bill to the Constitution and the Judicial System (Amendment) Bill were published in the Gazette on August 7, 2026, and were included in the Parliamentary Order Paper on August 18, 2026.
The proposed amendments seek to increase the retirement age of judges of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal from 65 to 67 and from 63 to 65 respectively. In the case of the Chief Justice, the retirement age would be the date on which he or she reaches 67 years of age or the date on which six years are completed from the date of appointment to the office, whichever is applicable.
The Judicial System (Amendment) Bill proposes to increase the retirement age of High Court judges from 61 to 63 years, while providing that the compulsory retirement age for all other judges and magistrates shall be 62. The Bill also proposes to increase the maximum number of High Court judges from 110 to 120.
The above Bills may be subject to constitutional review by the Supreme Court under Article 121 of the Constitution, and further action will be taken only after the constitutionally mandated judicial review process has been completed.
The Government emphasises that the Bills have not been proposed with the intention of extending the tenure of specific members of the higher judiciary or altering the structure of the judiciary for immediate institutional purposes.
The objective of the amendments is to strengthen the capacity of the justice system, taking into consideration the need to reduce the substantial backlog of cases, improve access to justice, facilitate the regional exercise of appellate jurisdiction, and preserve judicial expertise and institutional knowledge.
Access to justice is a fundamental principle of the rule of law and an integral component of the human rights guaranteed under Articles 2(3) and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers had highlighted the need to ensure that Sri Lankans have access to the courts and that their cases are heard within a reasonable period. The Special Rapporteur had also noted that the number of judges in the country is insufficient in comparison with the population and the range of legal issues that need to be addressed.
Having adequate staffing and experienced judicial officers is an essential component of access to justice. Recognising the Government’s responsibilities in this regard, one of the objectives of the current reform process is to enable the Court of Appeal to conduct regional sittings by increasing the number of judges, in accordance with Article 146 of the Constitution.
The Judicial System (Amendment) Bill reflects the Government’s intention to expand judicial capacity at all levels and not merely in the higher courts.
The Bill does not confer any authority on the Executive to select individual judicial officers for detention-related purposes. These reforms are intended to improve the overall efficiency and capacity of the justice system.
Although particular emphasis has been placed on increasing the retirement age of judges, such an increase should be viewed as part of a broader proposal aimed at improving access to justice and the efficiency of the administration of justice. This requires the appropriate preservation and retention of judicial experience and continuity.
The proposed amendments form interconnected components of a broader judicial reform process formally initiated through a Cabinet paper submitted in July 2026. Following consideration of the paper, the Cabinet instructed the Minister of Justice and National Integration to take the necessary steps regarding the proposed amendments.
The proposed reforms are necessitated by legitimate objectives, including ensuring the proper administration of justice, advancing public access to justice, preserving judicial expertise and ensuring institutional continuity.
The proposed amendments, including those relating to an increase in the retirement age prescribed by the Constitution, do not undermine the security of tenure guaranteed under Article 107 of the Constitution. Increasing the retirement age in pursuit of legitimate objectives is not inconsistent with the security of tenure that is essential to judicial independence.
While recognising that security of tenure is an important component of judicial independence and that it protects against arbitrary changes to compulsory retirement ages or terms of office, increasing the compulsory retirement age through an appropriate legal process is not inconsistent with Sri Lanka’s obligations under international treaty law.
An examination of best practices and standards applicable to judicial independence, as reflected in other relevant instruments, also indicates that revising the retirement age of judges in accordance with legally prescribed procedures is not contrary to judicial independence.
The United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary guarantee judicial independence through security of tenure until a mandatory retirement age or the expiry of a fixed term. However, these Basic Principles do not prevent governments from amending such mandatory retirement ages or terms of office, nor do they prescribe a specific retirement age.
The Government reiterates that the amendments have not been introduced to retain the current judges. Rather, they are intended to ensure that the judiciary has the capacity and experience necessary to support the proposed expansion of its functions.
Accordingly, including serving judges within the scope of the proposed amendments is reasonable and rational and serves as a safeguard against interference by the Executive or the Legislature in the functioning of the judiciary.
The Bills under consideration have been introduced in accordance with the legislative procedure prescribed by the Constitution. Accordingly, they have been made available to the public. Under Article 121 of the Constitution, any citizen may challenge their constitutionality before the Supreme Court.
Therefore, in accordance with Article 121(2) of the Constitution, the Bills cannot be proceeded with until the determination of the Supreme Court is communicated to Parliament. This procedure has already been invoked, and several petitions challenging the Bills have been filed.
The Government of Sri Lanka reiterates its firm commitment to judicial independence and the rule of law. The 22nd Amendment Bill and the Judicial System (Amendment) Bill must be considered within the context of Sri Lanka’s constitutional and legal framework. The Government remains committed to ensuring that the administration of justice is independent, impartial, efficient and accessible.
