Sri Lanka’s constitutional test: Judicial independence beyond immediate political moment
by Shelton Dharmaratne Sri Lanka has reached an important constitutional moment. The proposed 22nd Amendment has moved beyond political debate and into the constitutional process through which its validity will be examined. That development should change the character of the national discussion. That is understandable in a politically contested environment. But Sri Lanka should now […]
Sri Lanka faces a significant constitutional moment as the proposed 22nd Amendment moves beyond political debate and enters the constitutional process. This development necessitates a shift in the national discussion, rather than reducing a constitutional design question to a contest over political positions. The real issue involves the relationship between constitutional reform, judicial independence, and public confidence in the state's institutions.
The Supreme Court will determine constitutional questions, and public commentators must exercise restraint in predicting or influencing that determination. However, restraint does not mean silence; instead, it calls for a more rigorous discussion of the institutional principles at stake.
The proposed amendment primarily concerns the retirement ages of Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judges, as well as an increase in the maximum number of judges on the Court of Appeal. Extending the retirement age from 65 to 67 for Supreme Court judges and from 63 to 65 for Court of Appeal judges should be considered alongside the increase in the number of Court of Appeal judges from 19 to 24.
While the public debate has sometimes treated this wider package of judicial reform as a single proposal, it is essential to distinguish between the specific elements.
Experienced judges represent an institutional resource, and their continuity, accumulated knowledge, and familiarity with complex areas of law are valuable. However, the primary concern is judicial tenure as a structural component of judicial independence. The critical question is not whether an individual judge can act impartially, but whether the constitutional structure provides adequate protection against scenarios where judicial tenure could become connected with political authority.
Constitutional democracies cannot solely rely on the personal integrity of office-holders; instead, they must construct institutions capable of preserving independence even when governments, individuals, and political circumstances change.
Written by urgent.news from The Island Sri Lanka's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
